4

Assuming determinism, does this imply that feelings of pride, guilt and remorse are illusions? If we are not truly responsible for our actions, as determinism implies, how can we feel pride in our accomplishments or regret our mistakes?

virmaior
  • 24,518
  • 3
  • 48
  • 105
Zane Scheepers
  • 589
  • 4
  • 17
  • 1
    Excellent point. The ability to make such judgments presupposes an independent standard (i.e. free from determinism) by which to judge. Otherwise it would be like using disorder (incomprehensible data) as a standard to evaluate disorder, which could never yield truth nor emotional preferences. –  Feb 12 '18 at 13:10
  • Yes, but the illusion of free will would result in exactly the same emotions. Such emotions do not disprove determinism, if that's what you're implying. – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 13:19
  • 1
    But determinism provides no basis for judgment or knowledge, so the illusion of emotions would have nothing to ground them. They would thus have no content, making it impossible to explain the illusion of them being meaningful (i.e. as having the capacity to engage our decision making process). –  Feb 12 '18 at 13:27
  • True, but as I said, this doesn't prove we have free will. It only proves that emotions are illogical, if we don't have free will. – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 13:31
  • 1
    Free from what? If you mean free from natural determinism, that's exactly what it proves. Otherwise, knowledge would be impossible. –  Feb 12 '18 at 13:34
  • Do you think that feelings of pride over other factors one can't control, such as one's ethnicity, etc are also "illusory"? – Chelonian Feb 16 '18 at 15:27
  • You tell me! You feel proud of your team for winning the cup, yet you don't play for the team or train the players. – Zane Scheepers Feb 16 '18 at 18:53
  • Why would a deterministic system want to provide us with such illusions? It controls everything. It doesn't care what we do. People promoting determinism need to address why these illusions exist at all. What evolutionary purpose do they serve? – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 03:00
  • My answer would be a definite yes. If determinism is true the not only are emotions like guilt illusory but so is the idea that we are a rational species, since to human reason this metaphysical theory makes no sense and contradicts our experience. Fingers crossed it's a misunderstanding. . –  Feb 17 '18 at 13:01
  • @FrankHubeny guilt prevents humans from acting in a way which is detrimental to society. Pride has the opposite effect. The evolutionary advantages are obvious. – Zane Scheepers Feb 17 '18 at 13:10
  • @ZaneScheepers If guilt serves a purpose to make humans _choose_ one possibility over another that is a defeator for determinism because humans are choosing. Determinism is not the consequence of the existence of constraints. Rather _everything_ is a constraint. Effectively your question, once it is considered, is a defeator for the idea of determinism. Under determinism we should not be experiencing any of these emotions. Under a universe with free will, the ability to choose, these emotions make sense. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 14:14
  • Make you choose! I'll leave that just there for those words to sink in. – Zane Scheepers Feb 17 '18 at 14:25
  • @ZaneScheepers A universe with free will is not one with an absence of all constraints. One needs the ability to make only *one* choice to live in a universe with free will regardless of the other constraints. A deterministic universe, on the other hand, does not allow for *any* choices. Being constrained to make a choice does not imply determinism. The choice we are constrained to make is evidence that the universe contains free will. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 14:54
  • Look Frank, I get what you saying, but I posed this question to those who accept determinism. There are posts where you can air your views on why determinism is wrong. This is not it. – Zane Scheepers Feb 17 '18 at 14:57
  • @ZaneScheepers And I answered your question assuming the hypothesis of determinism is true. And I agree with you: You do get the conclusion that pride, guilt and remorse are illusory. The problem remains--that is not the real world. Your question generates a defeator for determinism. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 17:18
  • So then my point is, sure, in at least one form of its usage, one can feel what people refer to as "pride" for lots of things one has no control over. In *that* sense, we can be proud of our actions. It may be a harder case to make for guilt and remorse, which seem to be more closely attached to actual conscious causation of an action. – Chelonian Feb 18 '18 at 00:34

3 Answers3

2

We need to divide the emotions. Those you mention all assume that we are free agents who have voluntarily acted in ways that justify pride, guilt, remorse. If determinism is true, it is not the emotions that are illusory, since they really occur. What is illusory is our belief that we have voluntarily acted in ways that justify pride, guilt, remorse. As mental states the emotions are real; as moral phenomena we are mistaken about the non-existent voluntaristic psychology behind them.

By contrast ...

In the case of emotions such as fear, disgust or surprise we do not assume voluntariness. They are on any account involuntary states of mind. I do not decide to fear the snarling dog about to attack. Nor do I have any choice about feeling disgust at certain odours. Or about surprise when I open a letter and find a million dollar check. I cannot see that determinism could expose any illusions here. Automatically I feel fear; automatically I feel disgust; automatically I am surprised. I do not suppose myself to be a free agent in regard to these emotions and so determinism cannot correct any mistakes I have made about my status as a free agent, since I have made none.

Geoffrey Thomas
  • 35,303
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • Thank you. I was thinking along those very lines. But here's my problem. I don't believe we have free will, yet I still feel pride in 'my' accomplishments. In this situation, is my feeling of pride an illusion? – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 13:41
  • 1
    @ZaneScheepers: maybe its your belief in determinism thats at fault here? Even Dirac said that 'Nature makes choices'. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 12 '18 at 14:08
  • Nope. My logic is undeniable. Free will is an illusion. My emotions are just a throwback from years of indoctrination that I have free will. – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 14:12
  • If someone tells me something and I understand it, I now posess that knowledge. Nothing illusory about that. The truth of that knowledge might be illusory. – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 14:20
  • 1
    @ZaneScheepers. I agree with you that if your judgment is determined by natural causes, truth is illusory. But if the truth upon which the knowledge is based is illusory, how does it qualify as knowledge? Wouldn't it also be illusory? –  Feb 12 '18 at 14:35
  • Given that we can neither prove nor disprove that 'reality' is a simulation, all 'knowledge' is based on the assumption that reality exists. So yes, all knowledge is illusory – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 14:44
  • 1
    @ZaneScheepers: Hmm, I don't see any unassailable logic here, merely unassailable assertion... – Mozibur Ullah Feb 12 '18 at 15:06
  • I never included any. This is not about proving determinism. – Zane Scheepers Feb 12 '18 at 17:39
  • 3
    @Zane Scheepers. 'But here's my problem. I don't believe we have free will, yet I still feel pride in 'my' accomplishments. In this situation, is my feeling of pride an illusion?'. I don't think it's an illusion in this sense - it's not an illusion that you feel pride. It's a fact that you do. But it's a reaction, feeling or whatever inappropriate to the facts. You have done nothing that could warrant praise, since a praiseworthy action is voluntary and determinism means that nothing you do is voluntary. A case of cognitive dissonance perhaps ? Best - Geoff – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 15 '18 at 22:01
  • In the first part, you are saying that these emotions, real though they are, are not reliable. Admittedly our cognitive faculties do not have to be completely reliable, but why should they be completely unreliable? What evolutionary benefit do these illusions provide? In the second part, you mention that we have constraints on us. The existence of constraints is not the same as determinism. Determinism implies there is nothing but constraints which is not what most people experience. If determinism is true the illusion is very deep. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 03:07
  • @FrankHubeny indeed, the illusion is very deep. – Zane Scheepers Feb 17 '18 at 10:30
  • @ZaneScheepers If the illusion is deep that is evidence it may not be an illusion and a defeator for determinism. Those supporting determinism need to show why in a deterministic universe the illusion exists at all. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 14:04
  • That would be morally irresponsible of me. Nothing personal, but I'm not sure how you, or others reading this, would handle this revelation. – Zane Scheepers Feb 17 '18 at 14:06
  • @ZaneScheepers It would be "morally irresponsible" to promote determinism, given a defeator for determinism, in a universe that allows for free will. Effectively one is distorting who we are as human beings. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 14:45
  • I can't answer that, without promoting determinism, and that's not my goal. I'm asking a theoretical question based on the assumption that determinism is true. Please feel free to start a thread denying the possibility of determinism being true, if you wish. – Zane Scheepers Mar 15 '18 at 21:52
2

If we have information about emotions they are exactly what we know they are. Illusion is a fallacy approach because it mean something that by definition is different from what it is. In other words we can remove entropy from the question "what emotion we have" and receive the corresponding information. Before to receive the information the emotion is uncertain so any possible answer is imagination, after we receive the information the emotion is certain (probability = 1).

Dino Gruppuso
  • 71
  • 4
0

Assuming determinism is true these emotions of pride, guilt and remorse give us completely false information about our moral responsibility. However, these emotions are real states of mind. We actually have them. They are facts, but completely unreliable facts. But if they are not reliable, what purpose do they serve? Why do we experience them at all?

This situation forces a choice upon us between two conflicting ideas. Either the empirical evidence of our emotions is completely unreliable and must be rejected or the idea of determinism, which is after all only an abstraction, is false. The very existence of this choice is a defeator for determinism which has no use for choices and so determinism should be rejected.

This goes beyond emotions. Under determinism all of our cognitive faculties are unreliable as well. There is no point having them. Our very discussion here is pointless. We can’t change anyone’s mind not even our own. Because of this, it seems that the only choice that preserves rationality is again to reject determinism. If we accept determinism we are admitting that our cognitive faculties are unreliable and we are irrational.

Here is the question: “If determinism is true, are emotions like pride, guilt, and remorse illusory?”

Given determinism, these emotions are completely unreliable. We have them, but they give us false information. That we have these emotions, however, is problematic in a deterministic universe. They serve no purpose. This raises a doubt whether our emotions really are completely unreliable. If they are even partially reliable, which is how we experience them, then determinism is false. Based on this empirical evidence we can reject determinism.

Frank Hubeny
  • 19,136
  • 7
  • 28
  • 89
  • 1
    I didn't give the down vote but the question is not about whether determinism is true but what would logically follow about the status of emotions if it were. – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 17 '18 at 12:38
  • @GeoffreyThomas I answered the question that they are illusory, indeed, completely unreliable. Explaining why they are completely unreliable leads to a rejection of either the hypothesis of the question or rationality itself. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 14:01
  • I still don't see how the rejection of determinism is relevant to the question as framed but I also don't agree with the unexplained negative score, which I have reversed. All the answers that are ignored or downvoted without explanation on this site ! So unhelpful. PSE tires me; I don't believe in doing philosophy by democracy and especially not by secret ballot. – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 17 '18 at 17:16
  • @GeoffreyThomas Thank you. I agree with you about the secret ballot. Regarding the answer, as soon as one says "yes" to the question in the OP, one has a defeator for determinism since someone will say, as I did, that if those emotions are "completely unreliable", then that is not the real world and so determinism is false. Those who support determinism need to be careful how they answer this question. I needed to get "completely unreliable" to negate that as "partially reliable" and so I tried to motivate that by a discussion of what I see determinism implying. – Frank Hubeny Feb 17 '18 at 17:45
  • 1
    I very much disagree with the answer. Determinism doesn't make emotions illusory and unreliable. Determinism means that you didn't have a choice having the emotions you have (and both you and everyone else didn't have a choice in taking all the actions that did produce your emotions), but that doesn't mean these emotions are not real. – gnasher729 Feb 17 '18 at 17:49
  • gnasher729. I know we're not supposed to use comments to say, 'I agree', but I think you are exactly right. Perhaps PSE will allow this minor infraction of the rules. – Geoffrey Thomas Feb 17 '18 at 19:32
  • @gnasher729 We both agree that the emotions are real. The question is whether they are reliable or not in assessing our responsibility for either good or ill done. Determinism says they are not reliable because we are not responsible. Our experience of the real world suggests otherwise. – Frank Hubeny Feb 18 '18 at 00:19
  • @FrankHubeny that's because you see the brain as making decisions when I see it as reaching conclusions. – Zane Scheepers Mar 15 '18 at 14:17
  • @ZaneScheepers I see the mind as making a choice and sometimes asking the brain to rationalize that choice. – Frank Hubeny Mar 15 '18 at 16:12
  • @FrankHubeny so how do you tell the difference between rationalizing a choice or rationalizing a decision? You observe the process in your mind. Do you make choices or do you realize them? Sam Harris thought experiment proves the latter. Try it for yourself. – Zane Scheepers Mar 15 '18 at 18:54
  • @ZaneScheepers I see the mind, not the brain, making the choice or decision. Choice and decision seem to be the same thing. The mind may not be aware of these choices, but the choices are still ours. I've read Sam Harris's "Free Will", but I do not think he argued convincingly for determinism. Observations of the brain underdetermine whether to accept free will or determinism. One still has to choose which one to accept. – Frank Hubeny Mar 15 '18 at 21:40