Illusionism (philosophy)

For other uses, see Illusionism (disambiguation).

Illusionism is a metaphysical theory about free will first propounded by professor Saul Smilansky of the University of Haifa. Although there exists a theory of consciousness bearing the same name (illusionism), the two theories are concerned with different subjects.[citation needed]

Definition

Illusionism as discussed here, holds that people have illusory beliefs about free will.[1] Furthermore, it holds that it is both of key importance and morally right that people not be disabused of these beliefs, because the illusion has benefits both to individuals and to society.[1][2] Belief in hard incompatibilism, argues Smilansky, removes an individual's basis for a sense of self-worth in his or her own achievements. It is "extremely damaging to our view of ourselves, to our sense of achievement, worth, and self-respect".[3]

Neither compatibilism nor hard determinism are the whole story, according to Smilansky, and there exists an ultimate perspective in which some parts of compatibilism are valid and some parts of hard determinism are valid.[4] However, Smilansky asserts, the nature of what he terms the fundamental dualism between hard determinism and compatibilism is a morally undesirable one, in that both beliefs, in their absolute forms, have adverse consequences. The distinctions between choice and luck made by compatibilism are important, but wholly undermined by hard determinism. But, conversely, hard determinism undermines the morally important notions of justice and respect, leaving them nothing more than "shallow" notions.[5]

Critical reception

Smilansky's thesis is considered a radical one,[1] and other philosophers disagree with it. Professor Derk Pereboom of Cornell University, for example, denies that hard incompatibilism necessarily does away with self-worth, because to a large extent that sense of self-worth isn't related to will at all, let alone to free will. Aspects of worthiness such as natural beauty, native physical ability, and intelligence are not voluntary. However, since Immanuel Kant's Preface to the Metaphysics of Morals that beauty, strength, political power, fame, intelligence, and charisma are the absolute worst characteristics if the individuals who have any or all of them are villains. [citation needed] Moreover, it is a basic and common assumption that villains are never worthy of happiness, for instance. [3] James Lenman takes a similar line, arguing that Smilansky's expression of the problems is overstated. The problems that he presents are less fundamentally metaphysical than simply practical in nature.[6]

References

  1. ^ a b c Kane 2011, p. 26.
  2. ^ Holroyd 2010, p. 110.
  3. ^ a b Pereboom 2008, p. 472.
  4. ^ Lenman 2002, p. 4.
  5. ^ Lenman 2002, p. 6.
  6. ^ Lenman 2002, p. 15–17.

Reference bibliography

  • Kane, Robert (2011). "Introduction: The Contours of Centemporary Free-Will Debates". In Kane, Robert (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195399691.
  • Holroyd, J. (2010). "The Metaphysics of Relational Autonomy". In Witt, Charlotte (ed.). Feminist Metaphysics: Explorations in the Ontology of Sex, Gender and the Self. Springer. ISBN 9789048137831.
  • Lenman, James (2002). "On the alleged shallowness of compatibilism: A critical study of Saul Smilansky: Free Will and Illusion" (PDF). Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly. 51 (1): 63–79. ISSN 0021-3306.
  • Pereboom, Derk (2008). "Why We Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It". In Russ, Joel; Shafer-Landau, Feinberg (eds.). Reason And Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9780495094920.

Further reading