[Wittrs] Anscombe on Free Will
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
... forwarding this, because it looks worthwhile.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: steve bayne <baynesrb@xxxxxxxxx>
To: CHORA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 7:19:57 AM
Subject: Re: Anscombe on the Free Will
In writing _Elizabeth Anscombe's Intention_, I was careful to note her views on
free-will. Her avoidance of commitment on the issue is studied in my opinion.
There are occasions where one expects that in the very next line she will make
this commitment but she never does. At root, I believe her reticence is owing
to
uncertainty as to God's place in nature.
It is her later work where, if anywhere, a clear conclusion might be drawn,
although I'm doubtful. Part of her uncertainty is, no doubt, owing to a lack of
resolve as to what, exactly, freedom of the Will is a freedom of, as well as
what the 'free' of 'free will' means. Her most recent work, in particular those
with theological implications, is the most likely place to gain new insight
into
her views on this matter. I did not cover these works, some of which were, at
the time, unpublished.
Regards
Steven R. Bayne
--- On Tue, 4/5/11, JL Speranza <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: JL Speranza <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Anscombe on the Free Will
To: CHORA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 9:08 PM
In a message dated 4/5/2011 4:57:56
P.M., jwbowman@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
JL quoted [Grice as writing 'on behalf of Davidson]
"the position that there are such things as acts of
will is not merely
false but disreputable" [Actions and
Events, 1986] [whereas for Grice and
Prichard it is possibly unfalse and reputable)
>>Hear hear! It's a grotesque idea, inspired most likely
by Plato's
> >chariot drawn by horses that are agents themselves. (If
> you prefer,
> >Captain Kirk (passions) versus Spock (intellect)
> guiding the
> >Enterprise of a single "soul".)
Odd you should mention that since Grice's family called him
"Trekkie" as he
was addicted to that astrophysical series.
Interesting that you should mention Plato. Perhaps Plato is
more colourful,
philosophically, than Aristotle. I tend to think that
Grice possibly knew
(sort of all) about Plato since his Clifton Sixth
form -- public school
teachers tend to use Plato when they think their
students have grasped the
Hellenic lingo. So it must have been ARISTOTLE that
Oxford opened for him. But
I do agree with Whitehead that all philosophy has
been footnotes to Plato.
Talking of 'acts', I wonder what J. Bowman makes of
Anscombe. I take Bowman
to be a Wittgensteinian (and that he favours
Wittgensteinian exegeses alla
P. Hacker). Yet, Anscombe sounds slightly
_un-Wittgensteinian_ in bits --
notably in connection with the 'free-will'. Perhaps
this was the influence
of her husband who had written on "Mental Acts".
Geach is said to have been
inspired by Occam when he wrote that, but I wouldn't
know.
In any case, Anscombe (Grice notes) never took part of the
"Saturday
mornings" of the Play Group, nor did Murdoch, or Dummett --
or indeed Ryle or
Hardie. The latter due to Austin's policy that nobody
should be older than
_he_ was).
I write on 'the' Free will just to be unidiomatic! And I
write on Anscombe
perhaps to motivate Bayne, our resident expert on that
'genia' of
philosophy.
Grice quotes from Anscombe once in "Intention and
Uncertainty" and it may
relate. He is considering the two directions of fit --
word-to-world in
indicative utterances, world-to-word in 'imperative' ones,
addressed to open
courses of events to the addressee. And he compares them
with the 'shopping
list' in Anscombe's example. A shoppping-list, literally,
has world-to-word
direction of fit as you enter the supermarket, but
world-to-world as you
exit it, I think? (And you are free to drop some
items out of the 'list' for
different reasons: you may decide you don't desire the item
('of your own
free will'), or the supermarket is out of stock.
Anscombe could be pretty
colloquial.
Incidentally, it strikes that 'against his will' allows
perhaps for a
better paradigmatic-case argument, since most of us should
remember things we
did against our will -- unless we don't. (vide Grice,
"Personal Identity").
If Grice is right that We are Our Desires, too many
acts against our will
and we cease to be.
---- This is for Grice explosive stuff, for our free will
essentially
constitutes us, or Grice, for we should stop using the
plural! So that without
his free will he won't do anything (will he?) -- in that
anything 'he' would
do against his free will it would not be 'him' doing
it. Or something. (I
note that "or something" adds an
eleutheric-prohairesis -- or free choice
clause -- that may be sympathetic to some).
J. L. Speranza
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
