Support Philosophy Bites

  • Donate in GB Pounds
  • Donate in Euros
  • Donate in US Dollars
  • Subscribe
    Payment Options

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

« Philosophy Bites Daily | Main | Michael Sandel on Justice »

December 30, 2010


Daniel T.

At 4:40, Nigel seems to think there is a contradiction, he seems to think that if the reason someone does something is due to his past experience, then he cannot be said to be making the decision himself. I can't help but wonder who he thinks *he* is if not the sum total of his past (nature and nurture.)

In other words, the apparent contradiction only comes about because of an assumption of being something more ("higher") than what can be empirically explained. The contradiction goes away when one takes a naturalistic view of reality.


I have always had this notion that I completely made up, or it was in the atmosphere and I picked it up, but I have this notion that we have like 25% control over our fate. Yet with that 25% we can change 100% of our fate by simply taking control of this small portion that is ours. We own our fate and can change it, we can't change how we were nurtured but we may be able to change our very nature. I don't know if this made any sense.

The comments to this entry are closed.