Philosophy question?

Question

Do Frankfurt's cases establish that freedom does not require that you could have done otherwise>?
Help... Thank you

Answer 1

The biggest problem I've had with every one of the cases I've read is that they assume an infallibility which is not usually present in the universe.

Take, for example, the case where an evil genius will change someone's mind IF he tries to make a certain choice. The presumption in the argument is that if the person doesn't make the choice and control is not exerted, his actions were still determined.

But is this really so?

Let's consider two of the extremes. If the genius never exerts control and the person can choose one or the other, most would agree that he has some kind of free will and is responsible for the use of it. If the genius always exerts his control, the person cannot make any choice and most would agree that he is a tool instead of a willed agent, and not responsible for what he does.

The problem is the assumption that we can mix the two states and pick and choose from both. Frankfurt tries to suggest that there is only one possible outcome of this decision. And here's were infallibility comes in - I can think of LOTS of other outcomes.

Suppose the person makes the 'wrong' decision and the genius can't detect it? Or can't act in time? Or fails to exert enough control? Or exerts it in the wrong way? Or has the control interfered with? Or the genius changes HIS mind?

The only way we can be CERTAIN none of these things occur is if we assume that the genius is essentially omnipotent and can never possibly fail and that he has no capability to make different decisions. In other words, to prove determinism he assumes determinism, just one step back. This is no solution... just an obfuscation to disguise some argumentative sleight of hand.

So no. I don't think they establish much of anything. But that's me. Peace.

Answer 2

Yes.

This is Self-evident, when the integral selfness is at e.g. Plotinus' One Mind Soul-individuation level (which is what HF's notion is a subset of) and Husserl's Pure Ego (particularly if worked out in interpersonal community).

Jesus' "I and my Father are One" and "I do what I see my Father do" are examples of this, in Scripture.

The inversion or questioning of Self-realized Being arises when the notion of "One Good choice" begins to be repellent to the lesser egotism, as the lesser state "waxes gross." In Plotinus, this false consciousness, distortion of Light, or distancing is an example of energy-veiling outside the Law of the One--e-veiling, eviling.

You might also enjoy a more general lay-oriented work, O. M. Aivanhov's "A Philosophy of Universality."