Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If we genuinely could not do anything about the future, practical reasoning and intentional action would be incoherent, yet they are not.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Practical reasoning could be coherent even if determined; we deliberate about which determined future we'll cause through our determined choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The incoherence objection conflates 'unable to do anything' with 'determined.' These differ: determinism allows causal influence but denies ultimate origination.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An illusion can be persistent and universal without proving what it assumes; cognitive biases persist because they're useful, not because they're true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Practical reasoning requires assuming our deliberation causally influences outcomes; otherwise deliberation serves no function.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We successfully coordinate complex activities (medicine, engineering, parenting) by planning futures; this success demands real causal efficacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The universality and non-pathological nature of practical reasoning suggests it tracks something real about human agency, not systematic illusion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.