[lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
- From: "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 02:51:58 -0400
>> Ultimately, we can only attribute free will after the fact and only
after considering the context. But if I cannot be certain whether
another person has made their choice according to a free will, without
reference to a larger context, what makes me certain that I understand
the choices I am making as I am making them?
As a writer, this strikes me as unfair to the narrative.
Place Kant's "starry heavens above and moral law within" off to the side
somewhere. Rather than going down the path Phil suggests (Diogenes with
lamp, this time asking people who he is), address, instead, the question
of certainty.
How much certainty would be required to understand the choices I or
another person makes? Do we really need a God's-eye view of certainty?
Do we need to stand outside the narrative of which we are a part in
order to makes reasonable judgments and actions?
Modal factionalism could generate unlimited worlds in which our choices
are mysteries. For example, God could have created the universe five
minutes ago, complete with our memories of our pasts and our cultural
heritage, set up to pose choices to us now.
And yet we act. If the past isn't an illusion, we used reason to
generate an abstract mathematical understanding of the universe that
took us to the moon and back. We respond to posts as if they had been
written by entities distinct from us. We seem to have intentions.
In my opinion the universe has enough uncertainty to maintain mystery
and surprise, but not enough to paralyze us...because that would be
unfair to the narrative.
Regards,
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
