nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + +
→Section on morality: Why not /influenced/?
::::Anyway I agree that my contribution is lacking as it is, and when I have a bit of free time on my hands I'll re-write it substantially. Thanks for the feedback.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 16:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Anyway I agree that my contribution is lacking as it is, and when I have a bit of free time on my hands I'll re-write it substantially. Thanks for the feedback.--[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 16:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm questioning (your explanation of) Hume's view, rather than the content of the article, but without understanding the view better, I'm limited in how much I can do to fix the wording.
::::: By way of analogy, diseases can be (a) genetic/hereditary, (b) non-genetic/non-hereditary, or (c) genetically-''influenced'', but not genetically-''determined''. Hume's argument seems to be that if it's not "caused" (determined), it is ''uncaused'' (random). But what about the will being ''influenced'' by causes, but not ''determined'' by them? This would make it non-random.
::::: Further, Hume's argument appears to be materialistic, i.e. not allowing for a non-materialistic, or perhaps ''spiritual'' component.
::::: Comments?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)