0:01
the notion of pessimism has come into
0:03
this argument. Could you explain how
0:04
that figures in the philosophical
0:06
context and uh and and what weight it
0:10
>> Yeah, I'm not sure that it's the right
0:12
word. Um what it what it's used to mean
0:15
is that um you certainly you can't be
0:18
free in the way we want if determinism
0:20
is true, but it's no good if determinism
0:23
is false either. That is not going to
0:25
help in any way. So, you know, you're
0:28
absolutely caught. That's why it's
0:29
called pessimism. Um, so that's that's
0:33
really it. And I can do you want me to I
0:34
could say about why why it isn't going
0:37
to help if determinism is false. So
0:42
and I sympathize with some of the
0:43
compatibilist accounts that Simon and
0:45
Helen are given. But um, what you can't
0:48
do is think that there isn't any problem
0:51
because let's just remember what
0:52
determinism is. It says that everything
0:54
you do is determined before you were
0:56
even born. how can it be fair to punish
0:58
you or not? So some people think okay
1:00
let's make deter let's suppose
1:01
determinism is false and some people
1:03
think modern science actually supports
1:05
that view. Um how is that going to help?
1:07
So here you are you are as you are now.
1:10
Um what we want is a little bit of
1:12
randomness or indeterminism. But how can
1:14
that help? Suppose something changed in
1:16
your brain because of a random wave from
1:18
outer space and that makes you do
1:20
something different from what you would
1:21
have done. How that doesn't make you
1:23
responsible for it. That's just chance
1:25
or luck. that that's the general point
1:27
that if randomness or indeterminism
1:30
comes in that doesn't help with
1:32
responsibility it just makes things luck
1:34
or chance. So if it's anything it's
1:36
worse. So it's absolutely what it's a
1:39
sort of zwang or something. You're
1:41
absolutely stuck on both horns of the
1:42
dilemma. That's why it's pessimism.
1:45
>> You developed a four-stage argument for
1:46
pessimism. Could you run through that?
1:49
>> Um okay very briefly. I'll give the
1:52
crude I know that the crude version is
1:53
open to objection but I mean so it goes
1:55
like this. Well, look, here you are. You
1:57
do what you do in any situation you're
1:58
in because of the way you are, right?
2:01
That's the So, to be truly responsible
2:04
for what you do, you've somehow got to
2:06
be truly responsible for how you are.
2:09
Seems reasonable. But you can't be truly
2:12
responsible for how you are. So, you
2:14
can't be truly responsible for what you
2:15
do. Why can't you be truly responsible
2:18
for how you are? Because, well, what
2:20
would that what would you have to do to
2:22
be truly responsible for how you are?
2:23
you'd have to somehow make yourself the
2:25
way you are, right? Uh so, but if you if
2:28
you did somehow make yourself the way
2:30
you were, you'd have to already be some
2:32
way to choose the way you wanted to make
2:35
yourself be. And where did that come
2:37
from? You'd have to get back behind
2:39
that, too. And and um determine what
2:42
that was. And what you get is a classic
2:44
infinite regress. You just can't get
2:46
back behind yourself in such a way that
2:48
you could really be said to be
2:50
responsible for how you are.
