If anyone happens upon this lonely page and sees this, let me know what you think about it. Just do me the favor of remembering that it is in very rough form (much like the rest of this "article" ;) )
The argument from volition (rough form)
1. Volition is inconsistent with Determinism.
2. Naturalism entails Deteriminism.
3. Therefore, one must abandon belief in either Naturalism or Volition.
4. Naturalism is based upon inconclusive evidence.
5. Volition is axiomatic.
6. Therefore, one must abandon belief in Naturalism.
Obviously, the whole thing needs quite a bit of work. Every premise must be argued for.
1. I'd need to define volition such that it does not comply with compatabilistic leanings. Contra-causal free will, or whatever. I'd need to make sure that Volition retains its meaning in (5). Hopefully this won't be too hard.
2. This should be based upon the laws of causality and the impossibility of breaking the causal chain. Perhaps materialism would be a more precise term to use here, but I am not too familiar with all of the distinctions. The idea is, basically, that, if our minds are really just our physical brains, they are subject to antecedent conditioning just as is any other physical process. Obviously, this entailment is not a narrow, logical entailment. I'd need to cite some scientific documentation, here.
3. A rational mind cannot hold to two inconsistent propositions.
4. I could even grant that Naturalism's probability is approaching 99.9999999999999999999. Since axioms are necessarily held to with total certainity, Volition's probability will always supercede Naturalism's.
5. This has been established by Rand and some of her followers in detail. I need to understand it completely. The problem is, I believe it necessarily entails a particular epistemology, which would have to be argued for if this premise is to be established as true. This might require a book long volume, or a sentence - I'm not sure.
6. This should be obvious, but it does presuppose that one should base their beliefs on the epistemic probability of their truth. I don't think many people would have difficulty affirming this...
posted by onceuponapriori at 5:21 م
