I'll be doling my views on free will over the next few weeks - primarily in response to Blake Ostler's book. To give a foreshadowing of my perspective there are a few issues I'll mention. The first is to ask whether our analysis of free will has as a hidden assumption that causality is primordial. I think many, if not most, analysis does take causality as primordial. I think many approaches in Continental thought, starting at least with Nietzsche, but more likely going well back into the Christian tradition, does not. My opinion is that the Analytic tradition tends to ignore that issue - at least in the books I've read.
The next issue is to ask whether the issue of "when" is important for free will. That's not a minor matter. Certainly we are willing to say we are responsible for acts, even if the acts precede the consequences by a very long time. However most analysis once again tends to discuss the issue as if our intuitions of when we choose are a good indicator of when we are free. I'm not sure that follows.
The last issue, which is in a certain way discussed in the Analytic tradition, is the issue of the "mineness" of choices and freedom. Once again that seems a fairly straightforward issue, but I think it isn't. Here I'm thinking especially of Ricoeur's discussion of the self which problematizes certain aspects of a "simple self." I think, however, that a very similar issue raises in Heidegger's reading of Leibniz. There, in the 
The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic, Heidegger offers a rather useful analysis of freedom.
On a somewhat related note, over at Siris, Brandon has his explanation of why he buys into the libertarian position on free will. Of course for a Mormon perspective I think Blake Ostler does an excellent job overviewing the basic positions and making a case for Mormon libertarianism. I do feel that he's excluded a few positions. I think, for instance, he buys into a false dichotomy between total foreknowledge or no foreknowledge (outside of power relations). I think there are various middle grounds that ought at least be investigated. I also think that the issue of universals is overlooked. Certainly universals offer one kind of foreknowledge of the future. We ought not assume nominalism in Mormon theology. (Although I have been trying to get an Ockhamist to present his view of Mormon theology as I'd like to have more variety here than just my own approaches)
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble