A Critique of Freedom, Free Will, and Soul

Analytics of History:  A Critique of
Freedom, Free Will, and Soul

  1. http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/28/assumptions-of-freedom-are-reflected-in-the-data-of-world-history/
  2. http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/28/the-onset-of-human-nature/

FREEDOM, FREE WILL, & SOUL – They’re not completely bad as concepts, but their utility as analytical terms is up for debate.  The dilemma is, this value-based language is precarious; it’s like a metaphysical trap-door.  You never know when it’s going to spring open and pull you into the realm of transcendentalism.  It can be good as an instrument of the humanities; a tool of self-reflection and a gauge of human expression and experience.  But every time we use it to critically study either history or nature, we’re pulled into the world of spiritualism once again & the province of religionism.

My recommendation for preventing this → Get straight on what’s occurring at the level of higher-order natural phenomena and noumenal principles.  If VALUE-related, then how is it differentiated from the transcendent, the spiritual, and
otherwise supernatural? … If not, then what’s occurring at this
level
that we’re identifying it with such concepts? … That’s
the question!

Vis-a-vis the Eonic Effect, I have to say I preferred the old terminology better.  “Free Action Scripts” is a lot less tenuous a unit of systems-modeling than concepts like “Freedom” and Free Will.”  They carry too much ideological baggage with them to be helpful to us in modeling history and analyzing human events over historical time.  As for anything like “vitalism” or “dialectic” here actually assisting us in
dealing with these issues; they can’t … because heretofore, they’ve
never been able to show us why ‘for the rest-of-the-natural-world-down-here’ one group of operating principles exist, while supposedly for the ‘higher’ level, a much-more soulfully-based one is said to hold sway.

If, in fact VALUE and PHILOS-SOPHIA, is the real name of the game in nature and the universe, then  why is the rest of reality and its laws apparently laden in material, logos-centric, non-idealist terms?  This leads me to believe that, rather than VALUE having any intrinsic, metaphysic or ontological significance of itself, it is rather human psychology’s way of coping with aspects of our world that (up- to-this-point) have been imperceptible to us except on anthropomorphic and “meaning”-based terms of consideration.

In other words, VALUE would be a projection of the human psyche onto the world.  In such case, “Freedom” and “Free Will” aren’t real analytics of history and natural-sequences of time, but instead self-reflecting human terms whereby we’d be understanding ourselves through history and the natural structures of historical procession.  Furthermore, to arrive at a real analytic of history itself, we’d have to
determine the true qualitative nature of such principles, rather than just our moralistic approximations of them via the traditional language of value-oriented concepts.

That may be a tall order to do.  But I remain confident it’s possible …

Advertisements
This entry was posted in From the Web, Sketches in Historical Theory, What's New. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A Critique of Freedom, Free Will, and Soul

  1. John Landon says:

    Thanks for links, and discussion. I am interested you liked the old terminology, but I have found that few can stomach much theory. Still maybe I should revise the old terms.

  2. Pingback: Darwiniana » Luke link, and systems versus free agents

  3. People probably can’t stomach that much theory.

    Still, for what it’s worth, when they see what kind of stomach ache “scientism” or “new age” is going to give them down the road, I think the relatively minor upset of “theory” is going to be mild compared to what they will have. No, I think by the next century, people will end up having to have the equivalent of stomach surgery to handle what it is they’re getting now!

    Better the diet of “theory” than the fast food of pop science and religion!

  4. Pingback: Darwiniana » The eonic model is too elegant to be wrong!

Leave a Reply

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