Hi! I'd like to read what people here consider the weakest part of their current philosophical positions. Or what they consider the most valid criticism of it done by others etc. Thanks (L)
In general, I believe that people are too confident in their beliefs in light of the vast disagreement amongst completely capable and intelligent experts in a given field and underestimate the impact social environment has on their belief systems. As such, I hold a number of positions on various topics that I'm more likely than not, completely epistemologically unjustified in holding. Of course, I think most people are in the same boat as me, so it is more general to everyone and everything.
Specifically, I hold hard indeterminism to be true. I reject that free will exists and reject that free will is compatible with something being determined/completely random. I am agnostic about determinism being true specifically, but I find that irrelevant to the main point: our conception of free will and the basis for personal responsibility is in error. The reason this is weak is based in the fact that I find compatibilism (free will and determinism can both be true) so unintuitive and so blantantly wrong that I cannot make any deep level observstion on the subject. I don't feel that I should have to argue agsinst a position that needs a couple pages to show false.
Comments (1)
One is general and one is specific.
In general, I believe that people are too confident in their beliefs in light of the vast disagreement amongst completely capable and intelligent experts in a given field and underestimate the impact social environment has on their belief systems. As such, I hold a number of positions on various topics that I'm more likely than not, completely epistemologically unjustified in holding. Of course, I think most people are in the same boat as me, so it is more general to everyone and everything.
Specifically, I hold hard indeterminism to be true. I reject that free will exists and reject that free will is compatible with something being determined/completely random. I am agnostic about determinism being true specifically, but I find that irrelevant to the main point: our conception of free will and the basis for personal responsibility is in error. The reason this is weak is based in the fact that I find compatibilism (free will and determinism can both be true) so unintuitive and so blantantly wrong that I cannot make any deep level observstion on the subject. I don't feel that I should have to argue agsinst a position that needs a couple pages to show false.