Determinism

“conjunction of these two theses: (a) For every instant of time, there is a proposition that expresses the state of the world at that instant. (b) If A and B are any propositions that express the state of the world at some instants, then the conjunction of A with the laws of physics entails B.” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 186) (pdf)

II

III

“I shall now imagine a case in which a certain man, after due deliberation, refrained from performing a certain contemplated act. I shall then argue that, if determinism is true, then that man could not have performed that act” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 190) (pdf)

“the seventh of which follows from the first six:

1. 1. If determinism is true, then the conjunction of PO and L entails P. (Po * L) —> P (J doesn’t raise his hand at T)
2. 2. If J had raised his hand at T, then P would be false.
3. 3. If (2) is true, then if J could have raised his hand at T, J could have rendered P false.7
4. 4. If J could have rendered P false, and if the conjunction of PO and L entails P, then J could have rendered the conjunction of PO and L false. (remember the alaska example: (Q * R), S —> ~R, ~R —> ~(Q * R), therefore S —> ~(Q * R), but (Q * R) v ~(Q * R), does ~(Q * R) = ~R?
   “The Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588. and Peter van Inwagen never visits Alaska.” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 192) (pdf)

5. 5. If J could have rendered the conjunction of PO and L false, then J could have rendered L false.
6. 6. J could not have rendered L false.
7. 7. If determinism is true, J could not have raised his hand at T.

“. Let us suppose there was once a judge who had only to raise his right hand at a certain time, T, to prevent the execution of a sentence of death upon a certain criminal, such a hand-raising being the sign, according to the conventions of the judge’s country, of a granting of special clemency. Let us further suppose that the judge - call him ‘J’ refrained from raising his hand at that time, and that this inaction resulted in the criminal’s being put to death.” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 190) (pdf)

“Let us examine the premises individually. (1) This premise follows from the definition of determinism. (2) If J had raised his hand at T, then the world would have been in a different state at T from the state it was in fact in. (See our second condi

“And, therefore, if J had raised his hand at T, some contrary of P would express the state of the world at T. It should be emphasized that ‘P’ does not mean ‘the proposition that expresses the state of the world at T’. Rather, ‘P’ denotes the proposition that expresses the state of the world at T. In Kripke’s terminology, ‘P’ is being used as a rigid designator, while ‘the proposition that expresses the state of the world at T’ is perforce non-rigid.8” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 192) (pdf)

> “principle: If S can render R false, and if Q entails R, then S can render Q false.” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 192) (pdf)

IV

“And since these criteria make no mention of determinism, anyone who thinks that free will and determinism are incompatible is simply confused.9 As regards the argument of Part III (this philosopher might continue), this argument is very complex, and this complexity must simply serve to hide some error, since its conclusion is absurd. We must treat this argument like the infamous ‘proof’ that zero equals one: It may be amusing and even instructive to find the hidden error (if one has nothing better to do), but it would be a waste of time to take seriously any suggestion that it is sound. Now I suppose” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 194)

“determinism are incompatible is simply confused.9 As regards the argument of Part III (this philosopher might continue), this argument is very complex, and this complexity must simply serve to hide some error, since its conclusion is absurd. We must treat this argument like the infamous ‘proof’ that zero equals one: It may be amusing and even instructive to find the hidden error (if one has nothing better to do), but it would be a waste of time to take seriously any suggestion that it is sound. Now I suppose” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 194) (pdf)

• III is absurd, contains an error that is not worth it to discover

–

“. And the only difference I can see between this argument and the ‘criteria’ argument for the compatibility of free will and determinism is that predestinarianism, unlike determinism, is obviously incompatible with free will” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 195) (pdf)

???

• Lots of disagreement here that is quite interesting:

“is. To say of some person on some particular occasion that he acted freely is obviously to say at least that he acted on that occasion.” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 195) (pdf)

???

• infer agency as a criteria for action

• focus on desires and intentions etc

“the form: (8) S could have done X mean is: (9) If S had chosen to do X, S would have done X.12” (Van Inwagen, 1975, p. 196) (pdf)

–

• we could deny the laws of physics as we know them (happens)

\[ \begin{array}{} \text{you} \rightarrow \lnot \text{ gold chains} & \text{(if I have you, then I can't have gold chains)} \\\ \lnot \lnot \text{ gold chains} & \text{(not gold chains is not an option)} \\\ \therefore \lnot \text{you} & \text{(ya gots ta go)} \end{array} \]

???

Post Malone turns this on its head however. This is something I need to explore in the near future. Apparently, a common theme in Greek tragedy is to show good people being ruined ‘because of things that just happen to them’ [@nuss01a, 25]. How does this ruin come about? The ruin is often a choice an individual is forced to make. The choice is typically horrific. An example of such a choice is found in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon. Here, Agamemnon is faced with a dilemma resulting from two contradictory divine demands. Agamemnon must sacrifice his daughter, ‘\(\lnot\) you’, to appease the goddess Artemis in order to exact vengeance on behalf of Zeus, ‘gold chains’. Because the material conditional, ‘you \(\rightarrow\) \(\lnot\) gold chains’ is equivalent to the disjunct ‘you \(\lor\) gold chains’, this can also be expressed the following way: ‘\(\lnot\) you \(\lor\) \(\lnot\) gold chains. Here Agamemnon chooses ’gold chains’ (‘\(\lnot\) \(\lnot\) gold chains’), sacrificing his daughter resulting in \(\lnot\) you.

We can see the equivalence using a truth table:

##   (you) (¬ gold chains) (you → ¬ gold chains) (you ∨ gold chains)
## 1     T               F                     F                   F
## 2     T               T                     T                   T
## 3     F               F                     T                   T
## 4     F               T                     T                   T

???

However, it is not the choice that is reprehensible here, rather it is the ease with which Agamemnon makes the choice. In other words, Agamemnon is not ruined by his choice.

Agamemnon’s Reprehensible Attitudes

he adopted an inappropriate attitude towards his conflict, killing a human child with no more agony, no more revulsion of feeling, than if she had indeed been an animal of a different species [@nuss01a, 33]

???

Ethically speaking then, Agamemnon’s downfall was the fact that he wasn’t ruined by the choice.

Many rap songs are tragic in this sense, where the rapper is not ruined by the choice he or she is forced to make. In other words, ‘\(\lnot\) you’ is often chosen with ease. However, we are not often dismayed at the choices rappers are forced to make in this regard. Perhaps rappers like to parody Greek tragedies in this sense, if true, then Rich and Sad is a parody of other parodies.¹

It doesn’t have to be however. Perhaps it is plausible that ‘\(\lnot\) gold chains’, is not an option for Post and therefore we’re left with ‘\(\lnot\) you’. Perhaps his significant other has already left before he made his millions. He can try drowning his sorrows with his significant wealth, but is unsuccessful in doing so. Still either way, Post chooses the path less taken in rap songs where ‘\(\lnot\) you’ leaves him with feelings of regret. I think that this is something we do not often see in rap, earning Rich and Sad a place in the Makarios a Solitary.

If you do read the lyrics, I would like to apologize for the explicit language and subject matter.