Inwagen Quotes

At some point, for all eternity, there will be no more unmerited suffering: this present darkness, "the age of evil", will eventually be remembered as a brief flicker at the beginning of human history. Every evil done by the wicked to the innocent will have been avenged, and every tear will have been wiped away

In the midst of all the discord and disagreement among philosophers about free will, there are a few calm islands of near unanimity. As van Inwagen notes: Almost all philosophers agree that a necessary condition for holding an agent responsible for an act is believing that the agent could have refrained from performing that act. (van Inwagen 1975, p. 189) But if this is so, then whatever else I may have done in the preceding chapters, I have not yet touched the central issue of free will, for I have not yet declared a position on the “could have done otherwise” principle: the principle that holds that one has acted freely (and responsibly) only if one could have done otherwise. It is time, at last, to turn to this central, stable area in the logical geography of the free will problem. First I will show that this widely accepted principle is simply false.

To get the xs to compose something, one need only bring them into contact; if the xs are in contact, they compose something; and if they are not in contact, they do not compose anything.

DETERMINISM AND PROBABILITY We may understand determinism as “the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future” (Van Inwagen, 1983, used by Dennet in his Edinburgh University lecture). But, a theory, or a thesis, must be based on our concepts, knowledge, and understanding of reality. Our very concepts, understanding, and conclusions about reality may be only partially correct or accidental since there is not enough knowledge (not to mention evidence) to support the particular theory or thesis. In light of these ideas, it would not only be more economical but also prudent and wise to consider the reality out and beyond the customary spectrum and, by doing this, to come to conclusions or theories that would more significantly, possibly more accurately, reflect not only our ideas but the reality itself as it could be, beyond established and accepted paradigms, and, ideally, reflect the reality as it is. In that way, we would provide the ground (or possible grounds, or open the possibility) for defining the actual reality in a more tangible or, ideally, more accurate and useful manner than defining ideas and concepts based on theories, which may very well be, more or less, futile attempts to define the indefinable, depending on the degree of accuracy of any single approach. Dennett uses the example of quantum physics to prove that “at any instant, there are many possible futures, and they are completely undetermined.” Once the organism of the Universe is in motion, its destiny is determined to a large extent. This destiny will be different if the same Universe starts motion (walk, experience, life) at any other “moment.” Every destiny of every new Universe or revival is different. That is the potential of the Absolute. This potential or its variations are not known even by the omnipotent intellect or God. Even an “intellect, which knew all the forces that animate Nature at any given moment,” could not know precisely how its potential “materialized” in every new birth, revival, and cycle.

War is too important to be left to the generals.

This much must be said, however: the plan has the following feature, and any plan with the object of restoring separated humanity to union with God would have to have this feature: its object is to bring it about that human beings once more love God. And, since love essentially involves free will, love is not something that can be imposed from the outside, by an act of sheer power. Human beings must choose freely to be reunited with God and to love him, and this is something they are unable to do by their own efforts. They must therefore cooperate with God. As is the case with many rescue operations, the rescuer and those whom he is rescuing must cooperate. For human beings to cooperate with God in this rescue operation, they must know that they need to be rescued. They must know what it means to be separated from him. And what it means to be separated from God is to live in a world of horrors. If God simply "canceled" all the horrors of this world by an endless series of miracles, he would thereby frustrate his own plan of reconciliation. If he did that, we should be content with our lot and should see no reason to cooperate with him.

Let us always remember Abraham Lincoln’s undeservedly neglected riddle: How many legs has a dog got if you call a tail a leg? The answer, said Lincoln, and he was right, is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

Can we stipulate that or establish a convention that or make it true by definition that there is an object that has X, Y, and Z (and no other atoms) as parts? Let us ask what one might actually say in order to accomplish something along these lines.

I have found it helpful to ask not ‘In what circumstances is a plank a part of a ship?’ but, rather, ‘In what circumstances do planks compose (add up to, form) something?