What do we want?
- Seen a video recently on this site in which the philosopher Daniel Bennett was speaking about the cause of human consciousness, advancing the idea that on the basis of neurological research the ultimate source of consciousness could now confidently be postulated as materialist in nature. He opined that the most significant reason for what he termed the popular repugnance towards this finding was the common notion that a materialist theory of consciousness must be inimical to a concept of free will. (He then went on to explain why he considered that idea to be flawed and detailed how in his view the possibility of free will might be reconciled.)
The objection I wish to make is regarding his contention that it is the perceived constraint on the possibility of free will imposed by a materialist theory of consciousness that provides the main motive for popular disenchantment with the idea (I. E. with the idea of a materialist theory of consciousness).
I think this contention is flawed, and in practice that there exists motives behind the antipathy towards the theory which are over riding, as follows: Apart from the brute-instinct desire concerning how, “buried once men want dug up again” there is also surely the ubiquitous wish innate to humans not only that they be happy but be sustainably so, and additionaly that our situation should contain some inherent purpose beyond permitting mere ephemeral gratification – that there should in principle be, even though our own personal chance situation happened to be relatively benign, a constructive dénouement by which our predicament could ultimately be resolved - if that statement doesn’t sound pretentious!...Just a thought.
The objection I wish to make is regarding his contention that it is the perceived constraint on the possibility of free will imposed by a materialist theory of consciousness that provides the main motive for popular disenchantment with the idea (I. E. with the idea of a materialist theory of consciousness).
I think this contention is flawed, and in practice that there exists motives behind the antipathy towards the theory which are over riding, as follows: Apart from the brute-instinct desire concerning how, “buried once men want dug up again” there is also surely the ubiquitous wish innate to humans not only that they be happy but be sustainably so, and additionaly that our situation should contain some inherent purpose beyond permitting mere ephemeral gratification – that there should in principle be, even though our own personal chance situation happened to be relatively benign, a constructive dénouement by which our predicament could ultimately be resolved - if that statement doesn’t sound pretentious!...Just a thought.
Comments (7)
Are you saying that the wish for a resolution of our search for meaning prevents us from jettisoning the idea of free will?
Yes, and the alternative explanation is what I was trying to interpret. If not that, what? Maybe rephrase.
NB: I have now edited my op slightly by adding (maybe more in hope than expectation) what might be a slightly clarifying clause to the end of the second para!) - Btw, despite any unconscious flaws in my means of expression, thanks for your interest anyway :)
Sure, and thanks for your efforts at clarifying.
I'm tempted to say "of course." For me this "absolute eternal annihilation" is a fundamental issue. If one believes in real death, this belief radiates outward on to many other beliefs. Life is framed as a dream in its ephemerality. No talking head's feverish grand narrative transcends the vanity or ultimate/eventual emptiness of all things. We are thrown into brute fact, mortal, always already piecing together a fragile and temporary future from the absurd given. The talking head (evangelist or intellectual or...) can't die our deaths for us.
So there's a grand and terrible solitude in this perspective on existence. Many who do except real death still escape via identification with Progess (moral, intellectual, artistic). I do too, in my way. Language is a leap from the grave. I hide from my dying flesh in the iterability and ideality of concept, in the objectivity or materiality of the sign. That's presumably what these scientists do. They are so identified with the work that they are not troubled by what it means for this contingent selves. Those contingent selves are just vehicles which Science uses and throws away.
Quoting Robert Lockhart
Surely you're right here, too. Of course Science and Progress and Language involve "inherent purpose" but are ultimately ephemeral themselves. If I escape my personal death in terms of the progress of the species or of some community, the species itself and every community is also mortal. Only an immortal God can save us from our ephemerality. But I'm tempted to ask seekers after this immortality: what do you want to do with it? Give them eternal life on earth. Now what? Safe in their immortality, they are likely enough to enjoy the usual ephemeral pleasures more intensely. They can procrastinate indefinitely with respect to making something of themselves. Death drives culture. Death itself makes life vivid and important. Death is life's foil.
My own view is that this is inescapably a platitude. Apart from the reality that, in terms of the tolerability of their personal situation, chance inevitably deals a terrible hand to some - presumably then obliging such unfortunates, from the view point of atheistic theory, simply to pragmatically inculcate in the face of the prospect of unqualified annihilation that level of stoicism happening to be proportionate to the malignity of their current situation - there is also the question of how you could know you possessed an adequate concept of absolute eternal annihilation in terms of how profoundly consequential a thing it might actually intrinsically be. - It is of course an axiom that you cannot informedly reconcile yourself towards that which you cannot fully envisage. But then the news that a materialist theory of consciousness presents us with a predicament inherently unsolvable would be impossible to sell, the similarity between those of a religious and atheistic persuasion being that the adheerants to both outlooks equally indespensably require a solution to our predicament. We are incapable it seems to comprehend the possibility that there could exist in principle no valid solution to our human predicament, necessitating at all costs then that one be manufactured, even if in practice we could find any such contrived 'solution' to be satisfactory only by default.
Got to go now! – But would like to add more subsequently if I've got time.