Long ago I took a couple philosophy classes at U of O; one on existentialism, in which we read several novels and discussed their themes; and another, an upper division, class on ethics, because I was curious…I dropped the ethics class after sitting around the table in seminar discussing particular authors’ thoughts, like Kierkegaard and Butler. Majors seemed to take pleasure in making fun of what I got from them in discussions. Hated this. I still have trouble reading philosophy. It seemed like a game to them in which they argued a position to show off their cleverness, their superiority, the ideas themselves of relatively little importance…while hiding their biases. It must have been so self-assuring for them to ‘know’ these author’s precise thoughts and bash those who don’t get it…or saw something different (like the newbie, me). To quote someone isn’t to understand, it is only miming, presumably in hope of getting a reward. I read for understanding. It’s not a competition. So, this book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will”, taking a science approach to evaluate a philosophical concept, was difficult to begin. The author, neuro-biologist Robert Sapolsky, argues that those philosophers and theologians who claim that people have free will to do whatever they desire or set their minds to, are wrong. This appealed to me immediately. Continue reading →