I can argue that objects of math are objective in a way that seems to guide and be inclined toward by the material world. It seems, furthermore, that there are similar ideal objects of practical reasoning (beauty, truth, justice). But if the relation between the mathematical and practical within us is such that the former is like a aperture and the latter is like light, it would seem that the objects of practical reasoning are just as real as are those of mathematical reasoning. That is, the highest being is... Provident and infinitely perfect.
Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson. He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal. My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this. I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true. Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist. In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Comments