Hamlet Philosophy: what does 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead' say about Free Will?

Do you have free will? Does it even matter? And how can Shakespeare help you find out? Let’s examine Stoppard’s ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead’ and see what it can tell us about free will…
Subscribe! kzbin.info_c...
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosopyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
Suggested Reading:
‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’ are Dead by Tom Stoppard
‘Hamlet’ by that one guy, one you know, the one who wrote all the plays…
‘Of Liberty and Necessity’ in the ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’ by David Hume
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: 'Show your Moves' by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.

[@Contrariwise37]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead: the original Lion King 1 1/2

[@polinagonch]

wait.. it IS

[@fanc.5711]

Really? Interesting!

[@lindildeev5721]

@@fanc.5711 Well, The Lion King is basically a softened version of Hamlet where only king Hamlet and Claudius die, the queen remained faithful to her husband, there's no Polonius and Laërtes and Ophelia are the same character.

[@downsjmmyjones101]

Would one day love to see someone in a courtroom prove that their actions were not chosen but were determined.

[@anomienormie8126]

I just wanted to see what it feels like to reply to a six year old comment

[@downsjmmyjones101]

@@anomienormie8126 What's it feel like?

[@michaelhinkson6038]

@@downsjmmyjones101 Gotta wait another 6 years for the reply, I'm afraid. Determinism, after all.

[@shawn6669]

Is that anything like as important as the truth of it?

[@walterhoenig6569]

Letting go of free will is like accepting death.

[@catherinehorowitz3930]

really good video but guildenstern is definitely not super chill about how he has no free will like the entire play is basically just him having an existential crisis and also yelling at rosencrantz

[@TheHopperUK]

@Greg Elchert In this context 'Rosencrantz' means 'the one who is slightly slower on the uptake and every so often panics' and 'Guildenstern' means 'the neurotic self-aware one who keeps trying to talk himself into being fine with everything but is clearly half an inch from unravelling'. They are named in the script to keep things simple and, just as Abbie does in this video, people name them like that when talking about them. Catherine's point here is disagreeing with Abbie's characterisation of the two. It doesn't matter what we call them.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Existentialism Epistemology Etiology Thanatosophy These are some of the ideas - of a certain philosophical bent - that stood out as I read the play (I have been postponing reading it, but now with this video the opportunity did arise, so that's good) All "absurdist" plays are an homage to existentialism, but beyond that the motif of perpetual recurrence (e.g. 92 coin-flips being heads, only then comically broken by a single 'tails' flip, which was not taken into account) reeks of Nietzsche (and Schopenhauer; and possibly even indian theology, Empedocles, Plato...). Also Stoppard tip-toes rather elegantly around the (also Nietzschean) concept that 'truth' is a normative beast. That's already too much existentialism for one day though. The most interesting aspect is the presentation of basic problems of epistemology; Guildenstern appears to be, at times, a rather strident skeptic ( ROS: That must be east, then. I think we can assume that. GUIL: I'm assuming nothing) refuting almost every basis for belief, denying empiricism most vociferously ( ROS: Why don't you go and have a look? GUIL: Pragmatism?! - is that all you have to offer? You seem to have no conception of where we stand!). Along with the denial of axioms, he certainly does not make his life easier. These passages among others, once collected, form a complete exposition of Agrippa's trilemma. Interestingly, when considering Hamlet's fate (discussing the letter in the ship on the way to England) Guildenstern's Pyrrhonism seems to be shaken off. Epistemological conundrums are also present which go deeper than G's characterisation. The issue at hand can be generalised as the 'problem of the criterion'. Specifically, the question asked amounts to "can testimony constitute knowledge?" This can be seen here: GUIL: We only know what we're told, and that's little enough. And for all we know it isn't even true. PLAYER: For all anyone knows, nothing is. Everything has to be taken on trust; truth is only that which is taken to be true. It's the currency of living. There may be nothing behind it, but it doesn't make any difference so long as it is honoured. One acts on assumptions. What do you assume? and here: ROS: The sun's going down. It will be dark soon. GUIL: Do you think so? ROS: I was just making conversation. (Pause.) We're his friends. GUIL: How do you know? ROS: From our young days brought up with him. GUIL: You've only got their word for it. ROS: But that's what we depend on. GUIL: Well, yes, and then again no. Ironically, what answer might have been hoped for had already been given: PLAYER: Uncertainty is the normal state. You're nobody special. The investigation of causality is inherent in many parts of the play; R and G hardly know how they came to be, where they came from and seem to have very little memory, to their annoyance (" We have not been.. picked out... simply to be abandoned... set loose to find our own way... We are entitled to some direction... I would have thought."). An obsession with death pervades the entire play; I found it very comical when Guildenstern presents the Epicurean view of death as Plato's. Finally the link to ancient scepticism is cemented in the brief speech before the Player's stabbing ("death is not... It's the absence of presence, nothing more") which is similar to the view of Sextus Empiricus. The stated finality of death seems to contradict the recurrence of the coin-flips and the re-emergence of the characters at each performance of the play. All in all it was very fun; it did remind me of Pirandello's "Six characters in search of an author" - I really do recommend that last one! Although I highly doubt that anyone will read that far to take this recommendation...

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

tl;dr version: go see Pirandello's "Six characters in search of an author" - it's great fun!

[@harshalbhanarkar]

Thanks it was really helpful ❤️ and I'll check out Pirandello

[@StephenDeagle]

Great video, as usual. You're quickly becoming one of my favorite KZbin personalities.

[@klondike444]

Compatibilists can be very annoying -- but they can't help it.

[@irinipapaioanou4705]

this comment is true perfection

[@diasophia0207]

Looked this up to help me with the reading, and found an old philosophy tube vide! Slay!!!

[@MarcusBurkenhare]

I know I'm several years late but this just popped up on my feed and I had to watch it as R&G is my all-time favourite play. If you don't mind, I'd like to tell a little story... While doing a performing arts BTEC at college, I was in an even-numbered group of students and we were given the task of performing a short scene with only two characters. The rest of the group formed into pairs, except for three girls who decided they'd be the witches from Macbeth. Hence I was left alone. So in keeping with the spirit of the task, I performed the 'Questions' game from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by myself, taking both parts. Thank you for this, it's great to see some real deep diving going on into what is one of the all-time great pieces of Absurdist comedy.

[@DerAykac]

I´m a bit late to the party, but holy shit, i´m so happy you did a thing about this.

[@27Tulipa]

I would recommend a really good book called 'Sophie's World' by Jostein Gaarder. Besides being a good novel, it gives a summary of the ideas of some of the great philosophers. I admire how you convey philosophy in a way that both makes it more interesting but also more accessible to students like myself. I really like your videos and please keep them coming! As for the critique on compatibilism, I agree and the whole concept of determinism is really scary and daunting when you realise the fact that all of your 'choices' since you were a baby were really just meant to happen. And if this is true, then we are just alive to live a pre-determined life, like actors playing a character in a play. Like our good friend William Shakespeare once wrote: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players." Looking forward to your discussion on Kant and the friend zone.

[@jamesmackenzie2444]

What really intrigues me about this whole area of thought/study is when you start to ask larger questions about free will and power. I'm a big fan of Foucault's work on this and Steven Lukes' "Power: A Radical View" (well worth a read btw if anyone hasn't), but it keeps coming back to an almost utilitarian stand point for me, ignorance is bliss kind of thing I guess. Regardless, I know this is strolling pretty far off topic but i'm really looking forward to you getting further in your degree and exploring some of this kind of stuff, assuming you haven't already I guess. :)

[@AntonisGrr]

Probably my favourite of your vids so far :-)

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

I've always read it as a critique of Humeian compatibilism; though it pays to pay attention to the conceits of familiarity that Stoppard had to use in order to achieve that critique :)

[@Atavist89]

Wonderful video. I really enjoyed it! Have you considered using a wireless mic clicked on your shirt? When you're closer to the camera, the audio is louder than when you're farther away from the camera.

[@xXSellizeXx]

I absolutely love this channel. It baffles me that you only have 8,198 subscribers, Olly. Thank you so much for putting out the content that you do. I don't know what KZbin would be without you.

[@CasualGraph]

The play is sounding less like a critique of compatibilism and more like a joke about the fourth wall, but I haven't read it or seen it, so I wouldn't know.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

Great video on Free Will and determinism. I'll have to mull it over because I'm still very confused about it. I'd like to ask one question about what you said on causes. In a classical theory of physics, everything is determinist and it's not so hard to pin down causes, but in quantum mechanics that isn't the case. For example, you may turn on a magnetic field and an electron in it will align or anti-align, but it 'chooses' which to actually do completely randomly (or so QM says). In the case is it fair to say the magnetic field caused the electron to anti-align?

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

I certainly was not suggesting that Quantum Mechanics allows for free will. In fact, exactly for the reasons you stated, I believe it doesn't. I was asking about the definition of 'causes' in a nondeterministic universe.

[@AddisonTownsendGommers]

Free will I find is a nonsensical model, but it is obviously very intuitive. As for determinism, it's tricky. I only know a little bit of Thomas Hobbe's metaphysics, but he did posit some very interesting ideas. Basically in your example, all you can really observe is that a magnetic field was created, and the electron aligned or anti-aligned. That's it. No matter how much data you recorded, or how many correlations you drew between the magnetic field being applied and the particle behaving in some manner or having a certain property, it would never be enough to deduce a causal link between those two events. This doesn't really make sense at first, but I think about the idea like this. Every idea you have is a model of the universe (or at least a part of it) and consists of observations (which are technically also models) and/or patterns inferred from observations. Sufficient evidence is required for any model to be credible. The idea of a correlation between the magnetic field being applied and the electron showing some property only applies to that particular experiment, and so only requires those observations to be a credible model. However, the idea of a causal relationship applies to all instances of magnetic fields and anti-alignment of electrons, and so would require all of those observations to be 'truly' credible, we would have to observe all of these instances. Since humans are not omniscient creatures, whether causality actually exists or not our idea of it can never be truly justified. So in your example, it's indeed not fair to say that the magnetic field 'caused' the electron to anti-align. Just some food for thought.

[@LookingGlassUniverse]

So forgive me if I've misunderstood, but it seems you're saying (even in a fully classical world) causes could never be inferred because you'd need to check that A implies B for every instance of A which will be infinite. If I haven't misunderstood, then I think this is strictly true, but in practise not as soon as we make the assumptions that experimental physics relies on. Suppose I want to test that A causes B. It's not enough to show A implies B, but it is enough to show if all other factors C are controlled AND Not A implies Not B THEN A implies B. This makes some big assumptions like, if this is repeated tomorrow but you control everything else with C, then the same thing will happen. Anyway, under these assumptions, it seems like in my example it's fair to say that the mag field causes either anti alignment or alignment, but I'm wondering whether we can go further here and say the magnetic field caused the the actual one that happened. What do you think? Do you think there's some reasons why these assumptions about causality are unreasonable? Physics is interesting because we're always talking about causes, but causality isn't really written into the maths in the theory (well, except maybe for relativity).

[@AddisonTownsendGommers]

Hmmmmm... (This is why I love logic) You haven't misunderstood, I absolutely agree that with the series of observations you presented (not A then not B) it's fair to create a model of something that looks like causation between A and B (whether it be magnetic fields or the bending of spacetime ect) and make the assumption that it works in all instances of A. Therefore, it's indeed fine to say that under this model the mag field did indeed cause the anti-alignment in the electron. Your assumptions are completely reasonable, but can only ever be assumptions. It just can't be said that the field 'actually' (for want of a better word) caused that behaviour. Because of the way science works, we can never actually be sure that we know all the factors in play. Even if we did observe absolutely all instances of A, and found a correlation to B every time, it could be that there was a factor E that was causing both A and B, and therefore there is actually no causal relationship between A and B at all (these are just thoughts I'm having now). Causality is like maths in that it has to exist, seems like it exists objectively yet can never be proven to exist so. Btw absolutely love your channel. So happy that you can continue to make videos again :D. I hope to one day pursue physics as a career, so you're a huge inspiration.

[@AddisonTownsendGommers]

***** I find that free will and determinism are very incompatible. If we are using different ideas for the same terms though, please say. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that by understanding the deterministic nature of the universe (I'll call determinism a model then to be extra precise) we can predict the future and make choices based on that. I'll assume that this takes place in a material universe, and that abstract objects do not exist or do not interact with material objects, so everything that can be said to exist with the broadest possible defenitions follows that same physical laws. So basically, determinism exists as a fundamental property of things that exist (so we can predict their behaviour) and that free will is fundamentally unrelated to determinism (so it is compatible in a deterministic universe). Also, any random events cannot be said to be free(?). This way, we as physical beings can make choices that are both non-deterministic (the definition of free will) and non-random (informed by predictions). This seems to me to be self defeating. Any physical being must follow physical laws. There is no way that our actions (as thoughts consist of interactions between cells in our brain (also actions)) can possibly be 'free'. We could only act in a non-random yet unpredictable way if the interactions that occur in out brain were unaffected by their previous state, which is impossible in a deterministic universe. Therefore free will and determinism are fundamentally incompatible. Perhaps I am misunderstaning your argument, or you are using the term "free will" a different sense?

[@mackdmara]

Correction it is written is past tense. In my race for power and glory, I forgot to proof read well. Please forgive me. :)

[@ChrisSchwally]

Went to see this after seeing this video

[@annarchie9949]

"We wanted to add a chapter about free will, then decided against it, and here it is: " - Cohen&Stewart, "Figments of Reality"

[@jakubzapotocky4213]

I want to point out on one amazing book written by Joisten Gaarder called Sophie's World. This book is also an example of plot where characters realize that they don't have free will becouse they are part of the story. By the way, this book is about history of philosophy written in very simple way.

[@MoonSafariFilms]

For some reason I thought you were talking about Gary Coleman and was really confused as to how he connected with everything. Anyhow, interesting video and I adore the film and play.

[@themoderncaveman9586]

As the guy who ranges from nihilism to absurdism to camusian-style thought, the reason I don't subscribe to determinism is the same reason people tend to subscribe to it: human limitations and evidence both logical and scientific. I don't feel confidnet in the idea that our science or logic knows enough about anything to put complete confidence we have about it with the one semi-exclusion of pure linguistic logic because we built it ourselves from the foundations up and we decide where it stops. Assuming that most studies are accurate enough to have total confidence in is not reasonable enough for me personally. Determinism while conceptually interesting and worthwhile to acknowledge, like any philosophy, isn't worth much unless you have a complete and intimate understanding of how everything works, from psychology to neurology to metaphysics to physics to the rest of existence's knowledge so far as it pertains to influencing the human mind. Unless the knowledge is perfect, it is still subject to uncertainty and the coin flip's result is still uncertain, or it can land on heads 157 times consecutively, despite the low probability of it occurring. The only logical conclusion I can draw is that I seem to not know much of anything for certain and very convincingly appear not to know everything. Thus, uncertainty is the primary possible truth in my mind. The solution: act like free will is there anyways, because even if it isn't, the result is the same (so far as I can tell from my perspective) I will do stuff, specifically whatever appears to be the best course of action.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Several of these ideas remind me of Poincaré recurrences. A very neat concept. Very little to do with compatibilism though.

[@illsthaprophet]

There are other forms of Compatibilism that you did not mention, perhaps due to time constraints. It is possible that our genes, our experiences, culture, intelligence, knowledge, emotional state and many other things limit the choices that we are able to make, or even our ability to see some of the possible choices, but that we still have freedom to choose within these limitations. I believe that Daniel Dennett has a view of Free Will that works in this manner, though my explanation is a less thorough explanation than that of Dennett. It is also possible that I misunderstood his stance.

[@phatlaluke]

I know this is a separate matter altogether, but could you address the issue of whether or not a state (aka government) is moral.

[@ivov94]

2:42 had me laughing way too hard :D Made me feel certain that subscribing to your channel was a splendid thing to do.

[@KrashyKharma]

I think the question of whether or not we *can* do other than what we do ignores the further implications of a deterministic universe, eg that you'd also be unable to *want* to do what you want to do, because your thoughts, being as much a product of the state of your brain as your actions are a product of the state of your thoughts, is also predetermined. You won't ever do other than what you end up doing, because you won't ever *want* to do other than what you end up doing. I think the more interesting question is whether or not what **happens to you** could have been anything other than what happened; that is to say, if something that randomly occurs to you was predetermined or not. Is there any randomness in the universe at all, or was someone who was hit by a car at a specific place and time predestined to get hit by the car, could it have been any other person who happened to be there, *could there possibly have been any other person there besides them, or were they, from the inception of the universe onward, always going to be hit by a car at that place and time? Are the connections and intersections between every single atom completely predetermined and unavoidable?

[@Adam123620]

Olly can you do a video on john Paul Sartre (on being and nothingness)

[@EyeGlue]

Forgive me being (still) a student of Shakespeare's Hamlet here: but where oh where in Shakespeare's original (30k plus words) play do we share a moment when R & G KNOW that Hamlet will be executed once all and sundry arrive in England? This is MAJOR and I'm gobsmacked at not having understood their complicity -- but then, as I say, I am ONLY talking about Shakespeare's original not Stoppard's afterthought.....What say you, Sir? Can you point me to the precise line/s in Shakespeare's original play that irrefutably prove/s that R & G conspired against Hamlet in a devious plan to have him killed......???? I will not (nay, shall not!) sleep until I hear from you.....

[@logmeinwtf]

Interesting... I think that I'm a compatibilist too. There are far more reasons and is far more evidence to believe that things are determined. It's not conclusive, but more likely statistically.. Though, I still think it's possible to say that something is good or bad. This "morality" is dependent on the perspective. Who is something good or bad for? Since a person is required to be conscious to be able to ask this question, I think it's self-evident that extending your consciousness is necessarily a good thing for that specific person. This "morality" both causes conflicts and aligning goals, thus it's good/advantageous to live with people that search for mutually beneficial relationships... But yeah, not really sure... It's hard to find the right words to describe my thoughts... Anyway... Just some thoughts... ;)

[@Shunthegoat]

This reminds me of what I call the matrix debate . I only call it that because I don't know the name for it but, any way it involves agent smith saying we all have purpose and if we didn't we wouldn't be hear while neo believes we have the ability to choose our fate and I'm not gone spoil it but for those who have seen it there lies the question did neo choose the conclusion or was it his purpose .

[@allrightsreserved-toservew3611]

In legal arenas/theatres/court you are in for a "racket" and thus your 'play at it/game' is to "hit the ball/quest" back over the net untill your opponent does not return it.. The one stuck with the balm on his side looses "in the racket".. Nouns are names for "thing (-s)" and "answering to a name" makes (contracts) " you into the" legal rackets" as a "thing" /"dead"/"objectified" /"slave (under the racketering of legal framing)".. You "become" a "noun/name/pronoun" The eternal wisdom is "proverb" since living beings are "verb/living/actions" and follows self evident truths/"natural law".. (..note how this movie has the "law of nature/physics" allegorically possible to be a "natural law vs law of things/man" as a paralell theme running all through the film) Proverbs is the versed higher language like in "universe" or the (one/uni) higher teaching language.. It is law or as Norse languages holds it in its word "lawful by praise of the priceless creation/natures self evident wonders" (lov/lovligt) (Swedish: Ske lov och pris för skapelsen (skapad av skaparen)) ="lovligt/lawful".. It is keenly interesting how the story line of this film (as many many films do) obviously lends itself to "secrets in plain sight presented" since "plausible deniability" is modus operandi for all "higher esoteric veiling in shrouds of mist".. (to "mistify") The "trick" to make it "appear" as "a secret" even still in plain sight is to "misdirect" efforts of attention towards focusing on the semi transperent mist" in favor of "mistifying" with a "mist" something obvious shining through upon an observant indipendent (curious instead of misdirected) mind.. Your presentation still and all the same holds valid to its own points and is worthy of its own hurray! In "court" you are assumed "dead" or a "name" thus "a piece of (dead) meat and thus a" thing/slave" and the "racketers of the courts" lends their sand box" to whomever "enters the game (the racketers set up)" and by "God" (not really though, actually like "Lucifer/the fallen angel") it will play "you" by its own set up rules.. Aka acts in case (-s) by legal framing of "a play for the plebes" thus the "public (audience)" is but to "hear" what is written in sentences sequence forming the outline (rules) of what the authors of the play has been ordered by the "one" who "pays the piper".. . Good sports.. You (adhering to names) are the game.. Plebes be enter- (de-) -tained and he who pays the author to script the act is "your master".. Let the veil open for the act of theatrics to commence and higher wisdom is proverbially superior to pronouns/plebes/slaves/things.. You vers be in natural law of man (living life in reality) or pronouned into the scripted "legally dead" as a "slave/name".. The Bible teaches: "Put no faith in a title (legal construct)" yet the Priest (a title) summons his "commune" when to preach is what a proverb really means and being a priest (title) is a pronoun and is faithlessly and untrue in to preach to the vers of higher (natural) law and natural order..

[@xXSellizeXx]

I often hear people tote the Uncertainty Principle as some kind of solution to the problem of free will. I don't really understand that. Really, just because the answer cannot be determined does not mean that we have any more agency over any particular quantum event than if it _were_ deterministic. I don't quite see how adding randomness to the outcome of any particular event makes the idea of free will more plausible.

[@CosmoShidan]

Yeah, the concept begs the question as to how the agent is to have the ability to direct their decisions if they are random moving particles. I think Kant got it right with his model of free will, in that it is the mechanism where we derive moral decisions from. And besides, how can free will be observed and measured if it is unobservable? Hence, it's something for metaphysics, not physics.

[@logmeinwtf]

It's because this randomness is completely unpredictable and thus could be generated by a "thing" with a complete free will in some higher dimension somehow... But yeah, I have no clue how that could work. (+ why then should a human being have more free will than a rock?)

[@CosmoShidan]

GoogIe Chrome Let me cut to the chase, reason is free will. Then there's this quotation from Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant states that one influenced by instinct lacks a free will: Critique of Pure Reason, p.516: "A will is purely animal when it is determined by sensible impulses or instincts only, that is, when it is determined in a pathological manner. A will which can be determined independently of sensitive impulses consequently by reason alone, is called "free will" and everything which is connected with this "free will", either as principle or consequence is termed practical."

[@MONOBLACKMAGIC]

GoogIe Chrome "thing" with a complete free will in some higher dimension somehow" is basically the only way we could have free will in this otherwise deterministic world. However if that "thing" somehow communicates with our brain and alters our actions then our deterministic world is no longer deterministic.

[@radialwellendichtrin]

The Uncertainty Principle goes further than that the answer to a certain problem cannot be determined. Uncertainty means that the answer doesn't yet exist. A system isn't in state A or B and we just don't know, it's in both states for the time being. A subatomic particle can be in two places at the same time. This means that the leaf falling from a tree has certain influencing factors that give it a high or low likelyhood of falling. But you can't actually say when (or even if) it's going to fall until it falls. This doesn't exactly prove free will, but it leaves some room for it. If a system with a certain state had only one possible outcome, then your entire life would be pre determined from the second you're born until the moment that you die. That theory leaves no room for any alternative versions of reality, there is only the one. And while it's quite hard to prove free will in a reality that knows many alternative versions, it can definitively be disproven in a reality that knows just one possible way.

[@georgev2346]

Well the thing is that if they knew they were gonna die they wouldn't choose to act this way. They act this way and do what they do because they find it logical to do so. Therefore you can't conclude that they can't choose otherwise. If they knew they would die if they would die and didn't choose otherwise then i think you could say that its a one way street but since they don't it is a logical move for them to make. I think what choices you make and how many choices you have is equivalent with one's own capacity to think and see these choices in the first place.

[@Sendarya]

So what you are saying is that if conditions were different (they had knowledge of their impending deaths dependent on their actions), then they would have acted differently? And how does this prove choice? Quite the opposite. If they don't know the outcome, they will eternally go down the path we are familiar with that ends in their demise. If they did know they outcome of that path, they would never "chose" it, but instead end up on another path. The altered condition of knowing alters their behavior in a predictable way. Cause > effect. It's all there.

[@TheBossHaas]

Hello World! I am not familiar with the play, but I'm not sure how the two winding up dead is a critic of compatiblism. Because they couldn't save themselves, then... what? They should have believed in free will? If they had then they wouldn't still be characters in a play? I've always seen belief in free will or determinism as more of a coping strategy for reality then anything else. As time flows in one direction neither theory is testable yet (hence it falling into the realm of philosophy, I suppose), but regardless one must always deal with the consequences of their actions, whether or not those consequences could have been foreseen. Even if everything is predetermined, because we cannot know the outcome, we are forced to operate as if we have free will. So roll with (and yes, I'm a compatiblist).

[@thegnat2955]

To my mind, free will and not free will in this sense are actually indistinguishable. To have no free will means that you have no control over your actions, but in a sense, since your thoughts and so forth are ALSO deterministic, the "you" that might have control doesn't exist. In other words, there is no vantage point in the system from which you could look at it and say, "There's a disconnect here: I want/mean to do one thing and I do another."

[@jonahdunch4056]

The only way I really see out of determinism is if a) we have immaterial minds that b) have causal agency over our brains.

[@ericvilas]

I don't see how that's a problem, though. We see it as a problem because we're an outsider observing, knowing the future. In their perspective, though, they did what they chose to do and suffered the consequences. There was no predestination, there was just their choice. My first venture into compatibilism was Homestuck. It's a similar thing: what the characters choose to do is what creates the outcome that was always meant to happen, though there the whole thing is mixed with time travel and omniscient gods and demons, which just makes it that much more complex. BUT, that extra bit of complexity allows for one more example, I'll give you a short summary: At one point, there's a character who does.... let's just say some "bad thing". Her name is Vriska. Vriska claims to have done this "bad thing" because she saw it happening in the future, and claimed that she was forced to do it. HOWEVER, slightly later, it's revealed that she actually had an ulterior motive for doing that. If she didn't have that ulterior motive, then she wouldn't have seen it happening in the future. Because that's how she would've acted given that situation, she was forced to act that way. Her own personality forced her to act a certain way because that's what she would've done anyway. Because of how she is. It's still her that willingly did the action, and still her that chose to do the action.

[@redeamed19]

This is a good example of compatibilism, or of a person abusing concepts of determinism to try to justify her actions, but I assume it is known that she did in fact have the vision and isn't just making it up as and excuse?

[@ericvilas]

Kyle Davis Yes, she did. It's known that she did see it.

[@Enzymeii]

'We might not be able to do other than what we do' is one of those Wittgenstein-ian problems of grammar, rather than a real problem. To be able to do something 'other than what we do' is a contradiction- we'd have to perform two actions simultaneously, so the problem is nonsense. See Tractatus 5.1362..

[@nolanperkins208]

Why do you assume that not-determined is the same as random? It's not. Some thing are chosen, not determined as well as not random.

[@daddyleon]

Hmmpf.. to me determined cries out that an agency made the call, but I do understand that it's not (necessarily) the case, and that it might well be the culture I live in that gives me this connotation. I think... if you want an answer to either question (do we have a free will or is everything determined) it all stands or falls -primarily- with free will. Definitions are always the thing to start with, but especially here.

[@Tutorp]

Yeah, "determined" in the sense used in "determinism" isn't necessarily that someone made the choice, but that all events *necessarily* follows from the events preceding them. My reply here follows from your post, and my response to reading your post could have been nothing else than to reply - in fact, it could have been nothing else than to make this exact reply (if the world is deterministic, that is). Now, it's not incompatible with the idea that some agent made the call - there could be some deity setting up the entire universe as their own set of cosmic dominoes - but the concept doesn't require such an agent to be valid.

[@daddyleon]

Thomas Ueland Torp Yes, indeed. Maybe that's where my displeasure also comes from. If there is a deity that determined it all, is that deity then also dertermined by something - turtles all the way down? If we decide things based on things in (our) history, would that deity not have the same? And if not...why is that deity so fundamentally different than anything else (in terms of free will vs determinism)? It seems like a solution, but it just pushes the question back one more go. Just as the question about how did the universe start to exist: the big bang and god did the big bang. But what did god? Gods are not an answer, they are a fantasy explanation. The big bang is an answer, and, although it's not the full answer. Just like a transitional fossil does not show all transtions, it is at least a real explanation based on something other than... I guess.. this fantasy construct could also explain it. Those fantasy constructs. Anyway, sorry for this wall of text tangent. I hope you don't mind too much.

[@Tutorp]

daddyleon I don't mind at all, and I more or less agree with you. Using a deity to explain away something we don't understand is a weak explanation, as it just moves the question one turtle down. My argument that determinism does not exclude an agent setting it all up isn't me arguing that that is the case, but me arguing that it's not logically inconsistent. Let us for a moment assume that we do, in fact, have free will. That does not necessarily imply that characters in a video game, like the ones in the Sims, also have free will. The same argument could be made for us and some "deity" in a higher reality (in fact, there are those arguing that it's likely that we are living in a simulation of a higher reality. I don't put much creedence in that theory, but it is not inconsistent with what we can observe). To summarize: My point was that the existence of a deity (or other agent) is *possible*, not that it is likely. I do not find it likely, and I do not find any attempt at "explaining" away a philosophical (or empirical) problem by hand-waving and referencing some higher being to be the least satisfactory.

[@daddyleon]

Thomas Ueland Torp Yes, I agree, it is not inconsistent. Though I still think talking about 'free will' without defining it, is...a waste of time, since there are so many different definitions of it. Just like talking about gods, without defining them, is a waste of time (even within Christianity there are so many different ideas about it).

[@Tutorp]

I sort of agree, but I also think some arguments involving free will or gods are valid for all (or at least most) definitions of these concepts, and so worthwhile to discuss even without defining the concept more specifically. The "if a sufficiently advanced system needs a designer, who designed God?" argument is valid against any creator god, for example. But, yeah, we're on a huge tangent here. :-)

[@ozzylepunknown551]

"a man may do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants"

[@TheHpsh]

think it is the wrong idea of determinism, for me this is that you can predict everything, if you have all information, but to have all information, you can not be a part of the system, a set can not both contain all information, and it self according to set theory.

[@Gtrdxvgyfvbhhfc]

Man sounds like Cameron from Ferris Bueller's Day Off

[@potato673]

If it's a critique it isn't a very good critique, I mean all they say is, "yeah you can do what you want to do but you still don't actually have free will". Isn't Compatibilism about changing the definition of free will though? Sure you can't do anything other than what you do do, but as long as you get to do what you want to do that's free will. And I guess if you are stopped from doing something you want to do that's your free will being taken away from you. From what I've learned about Compatibilism (all of which has been from this channel) it isn't about saying you can control your destiny or that bad things will never happen to you ever, it's just saying we do have free will but not in the way you think we have free will. I think what I'm trying to say is the idea of Compatibilism doesn't oppose anything that happens in the play. The characters had Compatibilist free will, and they died. You can still die if you have free will.

[@PhilosophyTube]

I think you're dead right, just as was pointed out below. It's not a strict argumentative refutation of Hume's position, rather an expression of dissatisfaction with it. And I think that's fair, it is a play after all, not an academic paper.

[@potato673]

Yeah an expression of dissatisfaction makes a lot more sense to me, and I agree, as a play, it doesn't need to be anything else.

[@gracekleckler5141]

Philosophy Tube ct

[@gutsyse]

As far as I know the humans have two different brains. The emotional and the rational. Nowadays science is studying the emotional brain, the one we have in common with animals. And it is accepted that, when taking a decision, there is always an emotion at the beggining and at the end of that decision. Maybe we can have free will if we control our emotions at the end of that decision, which is the same to say that, no matter how the situation influences me, I can go beyond that influence if I want to. But, separating our rationality from our emotions is extremely difficult to do.

[@Pandaemoni]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do exactly what the leader of the Tragedians tells them must happen: they do nothing. He says of the play-within-the-play his troupe is staging, "Events must play themselves out to an aesthetic, moral, and logical conclusion. ... It never varies. We aim for the point where everyone who is marked for death, dies." They don't choose to not tell Hamlet about his potential execution, because they are not free to choose one way or the other. In fact, because of the aesthetics, even Stoppard may not have been entirely free to choose, because his play might have had to deviate from Hamlet if they had. I haven't read Hume in a while, but I don't think his point was that if we do what we want we will be happy with our choices or to an outcome where our future choices will be similarly free and uncoerced, merely that our behavior is determined but might still be called "free" so long as it is uncoerced. Rosencrantz says he does want death in the end, which would make it a free choice on his part, whereas Guildenstern seems like he is being coerced, which is a bit of a reversal for the pair.

[@pizzatime9196]

2:40 I am DECEASED

[@NatchEvil]

The concept of a world without free will frightens me something fierce because WITH free will comes the responsibility of choice. I choose to not do things as much as I choose my actions. I choose to eat, I choose to jump up and down, I choose not to say "Bubble" 47 consecutive times in a row. Without free will then destiny is at fault, not me. If I should go out and punch everyone in my local grocery store, how could I take responsibility for it? My actions were decided before I could get a word in. I didn't choose. Free will is something like a faith for me. I PREY free will exists so that I can take credit for my artwork and my inability to randomly shoot bullets at passers by. If Hume is right, then even my wants would be decided for me, and my actions are still clear of sin. That seems a dangerous road to take, especially since I'm living in a city (Baltimore) where just last year they celebrated the fact that violent killings are down to less than one a day now. Can all the death be blamed if there was no choice, even if the murderers wanted to murder?

[@Sendarya]

This is an honest response to a frightening idea. I HATED the idea of determinism for all the reasons you have listed, when first I encountered it. But fear and wishing does not change the way the world works. Over time, I've come to terms with determinism, and even found the bright side. Perhaps we will view criminals and crime differently and more compassionately (and be able to prevent it more efficiently), when we realize it isn't a "choice" made by bad or evil people. We can help other people out of situations that are likely to cause criminal behavior before those situations develop. "For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them." Utopia, Sir Thomas More.

[@roidrage11]

even if you do what you want, you dont get to choose what you want, so you still dont have free will.

[@LOLLOL-tb1pz]

The funny thing is that my last name is actually Rosencrantz wich is very uncommon btw i live in sweden

[@idunnn.h.3792]

Just a thought: If they did have free will, but their lives are completely scripted - as they are characters in a play, wouldn't it in reality not be free will if they, for instance, wanted to tell Hamlet about the plot to kill him, but in the script it was stated that they HAD to make the decision to not tell him? Are their "free choices" actually free if they have been pre-determined? Say if you didn't want to eat cake, but the script says you are going to make the choice to eat it... You get my point. This meta-perspective is killing my brain.

[@mackdmara]

Turn it on its head. If you were going to live a great life, but still no choice, but to do as you wanted, would you cry about it? Maybe, probably not as much, but a bit. Your job is to be the best you, you can be. Little do you know that it is written is not past tense. Think about it. God bless

[@huntertony56]

determinism brings a infinite regress problem to the table....and simply quantum realm shows it randomness determinism is not a logical solution.

[@ivanclark2275]

I don't see why it's a problem. We can't tell whether our actions are predetermined or not, it doesn't actually change anything. Logically and scientifically speaking, our actions are predetermined, but that's because our brains always try to do the correct thing based on the stimulus they have, so if you give them the exact same stimulation a million times, they'l always still make the same decision. So I suppose we could have free will while also being predetermined.

[@slartibartfast426]

Metallica at 2:40

[@ChloeFisheri]

So...Hamlet couldn't actually choose _to be or not to be_. O.o This may be a silly question, but if the Universe is comprised of cause-and-effect scenarios, what was the original cause? Science aside, if we're trying to philosophically apply causation to the brain then why shouldn't we first examine the origins (or lack thereof) of the Universe. If there's a problem, or exception, there, why can't the way we think and ergo act be exempt as well? On another note, Compatibilism reminds me somewhat of the concept of "irresistible grace" in Calvinism. This theory pretty much says that Christians believe because God has called them to believe. Ergo those called to believe cannot really refuse! God's "grace" is "irresistible", which poses an issue for the concept of Free Will. The argument that a lot of theologians make for Irresistible Grace in keeping with Free Will is that God merely implants in an individual a "desire" and people respond. They argue that our actions are usually in response to desires, and a desire for God is a "good desire". Ergo they suggest that, 'Compatibilistically', the "irresistible" nature and any consequences thereof on our concept of freewill _doesn't matter_ because hey, we are just following our desires, and ergo what we want. Also, from what Shakespeare I have had the pleasure of viewing, the concept of Free Will is overshadowed by fate. Whether or not characters have free will in their _immediate_ future, fate holds for them an _ultimate_ ending. Hence the frequent foreshadowing. Ros and Guild were going to die despite their actions. They may have had free will, but no control over their "destiny".

[@ChloeFisheri]

Oh, and if we have no free will, no control over our lives, are we then not responsible for our actions? If so, why do we have 'punishment'/a justice system at all? Surely our efforts should be towards prevention, and in the meantime lowering recidivism. Our determined lives make no sense! As Oscar Wilde aptly put, _"the whole world's a stage, but the play is badly cast."_

[@ChloeFisheri]

Hey. Thanks for the rather prolific answer - I must admit i didn't expect to see anything like this pop up in my inbox! Unfortunately i won't have time to write an elaborate reply tonight, so i'll just shoot a quick one back. I hope you'll forgive me, as this wont do your extensive reply justice :P I agree that 'free-will' can incorporate a reasonable limiting of will (as per the fish in the ocean). I also agree that determinism is flawed if relied on in excess (although I wouldn't say that James was talking about secular teachers in quantifying judgement). However, a year later, and I still subscribe to TULIP. Not stubbornly, as I can see how Arminianism may be biblical, but noone has yet convinced me as such. Admittedly I don't understand your dissection of the doctrine and why it would imply that God were singular. Below i've pasted a link to a document I wrote a few months ago. I had originally written it when i sat on a panel about Predestination last year, and rewrote it a little to prep some leaders this year. I hope that it clearly lays out my argument for how i think that irresistable grace can coexist with free will. docs.google.com/document/d/1GeAlAiNedDusYmeDMIfvqOT942lyOx0ArTiEcPeH5HM/edit And finally, I dont understand your inclusion of John 3:16 either. I concede that it may be 'challenging' (especially in reading until v18) - but to me, only because it highlights our own sin and the vast punishment we deserve for it. And i think this is far overshadowed by the awesome grace of God. All i could think that you are implying from this verse is that atonement is universal and not limited, which is a different doctrine in TULIP, which i am nevertheless happy to discuss when i have a little less on my plate. Anyway, thanks for bothering to reply! I hope we can both grow from this. God Bless!

[@MrTrackman100]

Shakespeare's tragic characters make free will choices to act as they do. Personal flaws and strong circumstance certainly "pull" them one way but in the end they must take responsibility for their actions, and the do. Think Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, Brutus.--each could have acted differently so "the fault . . . is not in the stars but in" themselves.

[@terrysmith493]

Plagiarizing and butchering an old saw, _I am neither for nor against free will_.

[@loganbalkovics5730]

do you really read all the comments like you said in your extinction video if so reply, thanks aha

[@doombybbr]

OBJECTION!!!.... quantum physics, it isn't determined until you actually check

[@redeamed19]

If you haven't played it I highly recommend you play the Stanley Parable. You can pick it up for $15 on steam and it deals with a vary similar concept, all of the real interaction within the game being about the dynamic between the player and the narrator, and Stanley's....just play the game you will thank me later.

[@redeamed19]

Back on topic. I must admit that I have not seen the play in a long time and remember only faintly any of it. However from your description it sounds to be more a critique of determinism in general by including representatives of both the panicked "oh no I don't have free will!" and the compatibilist. I find the argument that you are doing what you want to be fairly weak. Truly we have all done things we did not want to do for one reason or another. Maybe we wanted it more than an alternative, or lacked will-power or knowledge to do otherwise, but it seems to inaccurately describe the experience to say we do what we want. Even if determinism is true, which I am fairly certain it is based on the observable evidence, free will still remains a useful description that reminds us our choices can be more complex than simple emotional response. To me, the closest we can get to free will is critical analysis of our own actions.

[@timetuner]

Is it "against the rules" of a deterministic reality to have a perfect understanding of physical laws and perfect knowledge of all physical states at any one instant? Say you think you have achieved this. You try to use the laws to project the states out into a full projection of a block universe. If the projection does not contain your reactions to the projection, then either your knowledge is flawed or reality is not deterministic. If the projection is perfect and contains exactly your reaction to it, then it seems that there must be some a-causal, non-physical, law-like weirdness determining that no entity with such a predictive capacity would ever change something that they'd predicted. Even if this type of understanding could only function probabilistically, wouldn't frequently averting the most probably futures be analogous with a flawed understanding, and frequently failing to do so be analogous with the aforementioned weirdness?

[@gib803]

13

[@liam1558]

For Hume the bell tolls! Lol!

[@doomtheory8557]

Don't get him out of it. Got it.

[@Awildbram]

YES yes I know this one! The "eternal recurrence!" Ros and Gild are trapped in an infinite cycle of having to repeat their life the same exact way. Nietzsche proposed it I believe.

[@pizzatime9196]

Time to say goodbye to my literature medal Academic Decathlete here

[@quentinlynch]

Free will is a question of consciousness. The more I know about myself, the less free I'm able to feel. Hence, ignorance is bliss! ;) Honestly, I'd rather be subordinate to myself than to someone else - maybe that's the definition of "free will" we have to resign ourselves to...

[@redeamed19]

really? I've always felt the opposite. The more I know, about myself and/or the world around me the more free and capable of action I feel. You look at a baby, void of all but the most basic information, and how many options do they have at their finger tips? Yet as they learn both how to interact with the world around them and with other people the options available to them continue to grow. Knowledge is the key to "free will" (or at least something similar to it), not the enemy of it.

[@quentinlynch]

Kyle Davis My first sentences are a joke, hence the smiley. What I tried to say with my last sentences is that IF there is no such thing as a free will, I'd rather like to be subordinate to myself (i.e. my brain, my consciousness) than to some other entity (be it a god, be it any other supernatural force or whatever). To me the idea of being physically unable to do or feel something is not as bad as the idea of being unable to do or feel something because someone else stops me from doing or feeling something.

[@susipuh9799]

Codependence n counter dependence Temper adhd ocd n timid neurotics n world leaders Who is free? ;)

[@CosmoShidan]

The idea behind the characters breaking the 4th wall and that they are being written by someone sounds an awful lot like pantheism, or that a higher being is pulling the strings of all reality. Well maybe their reality. :P

[@ericvilas]

Pantheism and compatibilism aren't incompatible, though. Look at Greek tragedies: the hero chooses to do what the gods knew all along was going to happen, leading to his demise. However, the hero is still the one who made the choice in the first place.

[@CosmoShidan]

***** But wasn't the future derived from the supernatural to begin with? And if pantheism is true, then you have to prove there is a supernatural force in control of everything. In other words, you have to prove God and the supernatural exists.

[@ericvilas]

CosmoShidan I'm talking about fictional universes where God/the supernatural are proven to exist (which is why I gave the example of Greek tragedies). As for whether the future was derived from the supernatural to begin with, that depends on your perspective. In the case of Rose&Guild, the "God" of the play was Shakespeare. He wrote the play, he created the rules, the characters, the plot, and the ending. That can be seen as a kind of pantheist view. But the thing about compatibilism is, it doesn't matter. So what if everything is predetermined? Who cares whether a god made it so? The characters were still in charge of their own choices, they always have free will. You can't consider both perspectives (Shakespeare's and the characters') at the same time, on the same level.

[@CosmoShidan]

***** Ah, my mistake. I've been in several debates lately that it becomes a habit! Though, I'm not a huge fan of breaking the 4th wall in all honesty.

[@Sveshiniekslv]

What is this play about? Nothing. Nonsense is the main, core theme of this work. We see the plot of Shakespeare's play through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who resemble two pieces of wood in the grip of a storm. They are unable to understand or evaluate the events taking place around them. Their conversation constantly gets bogged down in grammatical and logical contradictions, which in no way prevents one of them from conducting natural science experiments that are well known to us from school textbooks. The arrogantly significant tone of the narration and the elusive meaning of what is happening enhance the reverence for this work. I have question about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: if I can understand Husserl and Heidegger, why can't I find meaning in this play? Because making meaningless what is happening is the main task of this work. It turns out that everything is not as simple as described by Shakespeare in Hamlet. Everything is confused in Elsinore - it is no longer possible to understand who is right, who is wrong, who is sane and who is not. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no longer a couple of rogues serving the murderer of Hamlet's father, but two confused characters drawn by an inevitable fate. Even in their hour of death, they are not able to understand how they managed to end up on the gallows. As a result, no stone is left unturned from the ethical discourse of Shakespeare's tragedy, and Hamlet himself turns into what he was only trying to seem like - a crazy prince. Imagine that when asked by a person who has never seen a smartphone to explain the purpose and principle of its operation, a heap of parts from which the smartphone is assembled is dumped in front of him. How much will he understand by looking at these parts and even receiving detailed information about the principle of operation and purpose of each of them? Can anyone who explains how a smartphone works in this way be considered to be doing the right thing? In fact, the question in this case should be different: why is he doing this? Why is it so important for him to hide the true purpose of the smartphone and how to use it? Why did Tom Stoppard fill up the plot of Hamlet with a bunch of unnecessary rubbish, burying the meaning of the play under it? To free modern Rosencrants and Guildensterns from ethical chains. In the semantic fog of the play, the boundaries between good and evil are blurred. Operational space opens up for scoundrels and scoundrels. White and black colors are replaced by fifty shades of gray. What should the scientific experiments conducted by one of the two characters in Stoppard's play tell us? The fact that these same scoundrels and scoundrels are the engines of scientific and technological progress. While the Hamlets suffer from all sorts of nonsense, the Rosencrants and Guildensterns make scientific and geographical discoveries, develop trade and industry, build roads, hospitals and schools. And now we are faced with no fog, but a new clarity with the meaning turned upside down. The moralist Hamlet is a talker and a slacker, afraid to get his hands dirty with real business. The true creators of history are Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Tom Stoppard's play, written in the 60s of the last century, performed two historically significant functions. First, it neutralized the unambiguous interpretation of Hamlet, which had determined the moral discourse of Western civilization for centuries. Second, it provided an excuse for behavior that was considered immoral in the context of Shakespeare's play. The postmodern porridge brewed in Stoppard's play became a breeding ground for the further reproduction of the Rosencrants and Guildensterns. When I expressed my point of view on Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead , I missed one important nuance that is proof of the version I proposed. Stoppard bypassed the flute scene in his play. There aren't many scenes featuring these characters in Shakespeare's play, so it seemed odd to me to shorten something that wasn't already in abundance. But if you compare Hamlet's words and the image of these characters in Stoppard's play, you can detect a discrepancy. Hamlet openly calls Rosencrantz and Guildenstern manipulators in the flute scene. Stoppard portrays them as victims of circumstance. And they can only look like that if you remove the scene with the flute. This means that my view of Stoppard's play is not a figment of my imagination, but a proven fact.

[@Nick-yz9fd]

The music in the background is stupid and distracting.

[@JSzitas]

I find determinism to be true, however, I still think that, as our actions are dependant on our previous actions, the knowledge of determinism in and off itself can change our actions in the future. The lack of actual free will is rather obvious, given that human thinking is a brain and a bunch of hormones, basically an organic machine. The uncertainty principle is, in my view, an attemp at making people believe they have free will so they behave. If you tell a person they have free will, they will carry on. If you tell them that they don't, they might do something really stupid. Also, our moral framework and our justice system rests upon free will. But rather than being true, it is another condition in determinism. You don't commit theft because you necessarily must not want to, you don't commit it because of the repercussions, or you commit it after you weigh them in. I really do not understand why people dislike determinism so much. Technically, not having free will allows you far greater possibilities than anything else, because you know that by conditioning yourself you can not make a decision that is as bad as a random one. A stock broker will risk, but not randomly, because his risking will be determined by his knowledge, rather than randomness. This may statistically over large enough number of tries make him rich, rather than broke. To conclude this before it gets too big (:]), not having free will does not lead to a less favourable outcome for ourselves than having free will. Our quality of life can only be better if we are not doing entirely random things. And in determining whether we have free will or not, is there anything more important than the human we are determining it for?

[@CosmoShidan]

Doesn't determinism entail what is observable? And if free will is not observable, then isn't that going into scientism?

[@JSzitas]

CosmoShidan And what part of my post makes determnism take note of something unobservable? If it is a change in the levels of brain activity or a change in the level of hormones, it is still observable. I do not mean to go into scientism, but I am saying that free will is not observable in any way, from an empirical point of view, and I have yet to see a purely ration argument in favor of free will. I feel that free will is much like a deity in a religion. We have no reason to believe it exists, yet some people believe it is there and ask me to prove that it isn't here... I am sure you see the problem. What I conclude with, the rational argument that we know our chances when things are not random, was to hint that we can also predict the behaviour of other humans with this. Economics, psychology, sociology- they rest upon that, and while they fail sometimes, overall they do produce results. I might be approaching this from an uorthodox standpoint, in favor of empiricism and science. If so, I am sorry, can't really help it :( .

[@CosmoShidan]

Juraj Szitas Might I point this quote from Critique of Pure Reason: Critique of Pure Reason, p.516: "A will is purely animal when it is determined by sensible impulses or instincts only, that is, when it is determined in a pathological manner. A will which can be determined independently of sensitive impulses consequently by reason alone, is called *free will* and everything which is connected with this *free will*, either as principle or consequence is termed practical." -Kant And besides, you can't use science as the judge to deem what is logical, rational and consistent. And besides, using empirical data to debunk a philosophical conception is pseudo-science in that free will, much like causation, time, identity and mind to name a few, are unconceivable to the senses. Another thing to take into consideration is that science is looking at how things work, but not why things work. For instance, when it comes to moral decisions, science can answer how they effect our thoughts and behavior, but are unable to answer why that is so. Otherwise if science attempts at answering the questions as to why, that is crossing the is/ought gap. Lastly, here is an article that shows what happens when one dwells over metaphysics through physics: scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-evidence-crisis/

[@JSzitas]

CosmoShidan I subscribe to Nietzsche, so will is nothing new to me. Kant gives us a definition which is not in line with the real question of randomness or not. Reason can and is and will be impacted by sensitive impulses, something which Kant did not know. I do not use science as a judge. I use science as a check. If something is consistent with philosophy and then we find that it is impossible in actual reality, will you argue that the philosophy is NOT wrong? Using empirical data where reality is concerned is from my POV perfectly sensible. We are trying to argue for or against free will, specifically in humans. If science tells you there is no free will, will you claim that philosophy which tells you the opposite is right? And if so, why is such philosophy superior to empirically gathered data? Lastly, I can't help myself, being a Nietzsche guy... what makes you think there ARE moral decisions? As Nietzsche put it, if you punish a man, his bad conscience does not stem from regret of a bad deed, because he does not necessarily identify the deed as bad in and off itself, it comes from a regret that he did the deed because of the punishment he receives. He regrets screwing up, rather than doing something bad. Similarly, Nietzsche proposes that morality depends on the culture and is relative. You can see this in everyday world. Please keep in mind that I am not saying we should always just blindly follow science. I am saying that we should not follow either pure philosophy or pure theoretical science. The difference here is that I require my science to not only work out a model, but to also conduce an experiment and turn out the conclusion given by theory. The article, while intresting, is a huge question mark in and off itself. The question that arises is, are those the reasons why we should abandon any empirical data? Should we give up trying just because we will be wrong and rather regress to philosophy? Will it help? In any case, my answer is no. Even is all of our particle physics are wrong, we have enough data to construct as many models as it takes to make them right, and then eliminate the wrong models using a condition which renders them impossible. Before then, they are theory. But I think we (or I ) have gone slightly off topic. I am simply saying that there is no reason to believe we have a free will. Free will as debated in the video, the random element which humans can use. And such element can only be discovered by science, philosophy falls short. Simply redefining free will as something else will not serve.

[@CosmoShidan]

Juraj Szitas Problem I have with Nietzsche's moral theory is that it's a relativistic position in philosophy. And once one goes into a relativistic disposition, it makes it harder to resolve a conflict between two competing systems in dispute. For instance, without a universalized moral code, two individuals from, say a Taoist sect and a Buddhist sect would end up in a heated argument over the good life, without an agreement over what morals they agree on. Relativism offers no way deeming moral truth as it claims morality is subjective, which is self-defeating. As a follower of Kant, I believe Nietzsche fell short in not being able to realize this. Now as why do I believe there are moral decisions, as moral realist, I tend to assert that universally, human beings have a strive to life, freedom, autonomy and understanding; especially amongst one another, and without it, it would be like the scenario as mentioned above. Honestly, in order to have morals to begin with, we need to have empathy and reason. And who even follows Nietzsche's egoism? Or egoism itself? It's a dead moral theory that has no other means to invent moral rules, other than the rules revolve around happiness, in the same vein of utilitarianism "I do not use science as a judge. I use science as a check. If something is consistent with philosophy and then we find that it is impossible in actual reality, will you argue that the philosophy is NOT wrong?" What do you mean by "check"? Do you mean science as a means of informing philosophy? "If science tells you there is no free will, will you claim that philosophy which tells you the opposite is right? And if so, why is such philosophy superior to empirically gathered data?" Again, science tells me how things which are observable work. It can't tell me what I can't see works or why so. Once again science doesn't create theoretical models from logic, philosophy does. "The article, while intresting, is a huge question mark in and off itself. The question that arises is, are those the reasons why we should abandon any empirical data? Should we give up trying just because we will be wrong and rather regress to philosophy? Will it help? In any case, my answer is no. Even is all of our particle physics are wrong, we have enough data to construct as many models as it takes to make them right, and then eliminate the wrong models using a condition which renders them impossible. Before then, they are theory. " Wait, wouldn't constantly making mathematical models, and not testing them, be abandoning empiricism all together? "But I think we (or I ) have gone slightly off topic. I am simply saying that there is no reason to believe we have a free will. Free will as debated in the video, the random element which humans can use. And such element can only be discovered by science, philosophy falls short. Simply redefining free will as something else will not serve."  But then wouldn't it be harder to discuss morality? And ridding ourselves of free will lead people to depression? Much like Nietzsche was?

[@Pfhorrest]

Once again disappointed that there's no mention of modern compatibilism (ala Frankfurt or Wolf) here. On a modern compatibilist account, free will isn't just freedom of action (like it is for Hume), it's being built in such a way that your reflection or deliberation on what's the best thing to do is effective at changing what you actually do. That whole process can still be deterministic, in fact it needs to be adequately deterministic because inserting complete randomness anywhere along the way would completely disconnect deliberation from action. But it's the connection between deliberation and action that constitutes free will. Someone who lacks free will is, for example, an unwilling alcoholic, who decides that they should stop drinking, intends to stop drinking, but nevertheless keeps finding themselves drinking anyway.

[@jackmuir5314]

Nonsense conclusion here. You are ignoring the free will of the playwright, any future playwrights who do not end up writing a story where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern don't end up dead, the free will of yourself to potentially come to a different conclusion, the free will of audiences to either accept what was presented by the playwright in the story, or reject it, like how I rejected your conclusion here etc. etc. etc.

[@il343]

Are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern a reference to the Rosicrucians?

[@PhilosophyTube]

Cratkos Montague Probably not except insofar as the name 'Rosencrantz' and the word 'Rosicucians' have an common root in the Latin for 'rose cross.' Ideologically, no.

[@Blazer1408]

Wait a fricking second. 4:45-5:02... That critique IMO is from somebody who doesn´t really understand the core of compatibilism as an aswer, as an anesthesic for the pain that the idea of not being free brings with it self. Compatibilism is a solution because the problem, isn´t that we want to do other than what we do, is that we want to be happy and fulfill desires imposed only by ourselves. The concern for having free will comes out of OUR necessity to be happy which is fulfill throught a reaffirmation of OURselves because the subject that experiments that state of being (happiness) has itself as the most & only reliable form of generating that state of being since they are the same & so it knows it self. The idea of not being able to generate to itself that state of being (happiness) is the problem... but a problem that originates outside the being, obviously because that being can not impose limits to itself in that primordial & necessary state of being (happiness); by this I mean that the only limit to the "pursuit of happiness" exists as long as other beings exists & they want to reach their own state of being (happiness) throught you. Not having free will is being slave of other´s idea of happiness, that happens in determinism... with compatibilsm we chose our happiness even though it some times seems like the cause of chosing that comes outside of us. I´m saying that compatibilsm has the TRUE idea of free will (however as theory is way to short) & it answers the questions, solves the problem because it goes to the core fo what we mean & feel with the idea of being free. Now, in the case of the play I put everything in perspective. There´s no problem with dying over & over again for those characters because they know they are really free, they chose to be happy in a way that includes being executed. They chose to do want they wanted & so they were happy & they fulfill their own happiness, nobody forced them to chose TO WANT anything, they wanted what they wanted & so that make them free. Besides, the idea of considering them not free because they will keep dying is transfering your (the person who does the critic to compatibilsm) concept of happiness regarding one aspect (living 1 time is better than dying & repeating the last days of your life for all eternity) to them so you think there´s a problem with that idea. That person to say that (the critique) didn´t understand the definition of compatibilism; if it talks about doing what we want to do... then why would you think that just because they chose what they wanted & that lead them to their deaths & eternal repetition there´s a problem?? In that case you´re either mixing the conceps of free will (to chose over our lives/to chose what we want to want) or just transfering your part of your ideals & morals like Spinoza says in his third "book" of Ethics.

[@Ansatz66]

I call shenanigans. Guildenstern is clearly not taking the compatibilist view because he doesn't seem to consider himself any more free than Rosencrantz. "To be taken in hand and led"? That's not freedom! If this is a critique of Compatibilism then it seems like a critique made by someone who doesn't understand what he is criticizing. Compatibilism is not about being comfortable with a lack of freedom. That's more like a strawman of Compatibilism that an incompatibilist might make. 4:51 "Yes, they are able to do what they want to do, but they are not free. They are still trapped, and they still die." Being able to do what you want to do is the only kind of freedom imaginable. Would anyone seriously consider Rosencrantz or Guildenstern more free if they _weren't_ able to do what they want to do? If dying in the end is the proof that they weren't free, then the only way they could be free is if someone forced them to reveal the conspiracy to Hamlet against their preference. It's like you're saying that you need to have some sort of demon climb into your head and control you to do other than what you want to do in order to be free.

[@JAMAICADOCK]

Stoppard was only distilling the questions raised in Hamlet. The idea of the play within a play in terms of the mousetrap. All the endless references to matter passing through eternity. The idea that we are all destined to play the same roles again and again in some play within a play within a play within a play, was Shakespeare's idea from the start, Stoppard only cracking lame student jokes, at the expense of true genius

[@mcintoshthedodgyonedyson]

Blah de bla du bleh

[@mcintoshthedodgyonedyson]

Too many teeth😊

[@matgay]

A huge monologue about nothing😭

[@mag9604]

Pretty much

[@katjathesaurus3800]

Lust for life.... Kinda determened by... N.. I dont wanna...whinywhine....aso... Then .... Maybe the hairdo make swnce alL of a sudden... ..speech spelLbound n absurdum

[@Lily-Exclamation-Point]

I love philosophy Tube, I wish trans people were real.

[@milliern]

Great video. I disliked it strictly because of the irritating orator.