HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Free Will by Sam Harris
Loading...

Free Will (original 2012; edition 2012)

by Sam Harris

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations / Mentions
3971526,945 (3.78)1 / 10
Member:Booksloth
Title:Free Will
Authors:Sam Harris
Info:Free Press (2012), Edition: Original, Paperback, 96 pages
Collections:Your library, Non-fiction, Read in 2013
Rating:***
Tags:None

Work details

Free Will by Sam Harris (2012)

None.

None
Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

Showing 1-5 of 15 (next | show all)
Not for me; not at all.
  V.V.Harding | Apr 21, 2015 |
Depressingly convincing. I have thought of this book pretty much every day since I finished it, mainly when I think of some new horrible crime report. I am not as eloquent as Sam Harris by far, so I cannot really explain effectively why I think Sam Harris is only partially right in his argument that there is no free will. Still, it's good to challenge oneself with these types of reads if only to test preconceived notions that we usually take for granted. This essay just took me to a place of meaninglessness. Everything I value in life is built on the philosophical foundation of free will. Sam Harris sort of turns that foundation into quicksand. He's hard to argue with, which is frustrating. The other frustrating thing is that all the counter arguments to Harris sound lame. I think I'll try to go back to my comfortable illusion of controlling my own thoughts and choices. There is hope in that mirage. ( )
  BenjaminHahn | Apr 20, 2015 |
Free will and responsibility are not the same thing. Reading this made me think about the epistemology and ontology of "free will", an old myth which humanity is just still not ready to let die. Philosophy and science, as ever, are way ahead of the ubiquitous closed minds of mankind. ( )
  JorgeCarvajal | Feb 13, 2015 |
A great introduction to the topic of free will and determinism. Not for the philosophically advanced but this book does offer some interesting psychological perspectives that are too often overlooked in philosophy. I particularly liked the discussion of the political ramifications of free will and determinism. ( )
  wildeaboutoscar | Sep 20, 2013 |
This little book (small, at 80 pages) is a concise statement of the anti- free will position. It provides a fine introduction for any reader who has not thought about the issues. More experienced readers will find it unsatisfying and superficial, in that it side- steps complexities, and doesn't make much effort to take on counter-arguments. One would not realize from this work that a large literature on the free-will issue exists. As a relative newcomer to the controversies, Harris does little justice the thinking of philosophers and scientists who have wrestled with the issues over the decades and centuries. Nevertheless, Harris' essay is a clever, incisive challenge to common assumptions, one that proponents of free will find hard to refute. This book will expand the perspective of many a reader, and would be a useful addition to a college or high school class, especially if accompanied by works with alternative viewpoints.

My own sympathies lie with the anti- free will position as well; in fact I find myself in overall agreement with the author's perspective. If anything, my mixed reaction reflects disappointment that the strong case made by the author was not stronger. For example, from the empirical side, much more could have been cited in favor of the author's position. Likewise, on the philosophical side, the author text does not deal with complexities at more than a superficial level.

For example: "Either our wills are determined by prior causes, and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them." Such a statement, one that is apparently is to be taken largely on faith, will not go far towards convincing the skeptic that these are the only two options. Consider the linguistic complexities masked in the facile use of words such as "wills," "causes," and "responsibility," words whose meanings and implications surely need to be unpacked and analyzed.

Another quote from later in the book states: "To say that I was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them." Very few people would be willing to use the word "responsible" in the new way that Harris proposes. (Does his argument not imply that we should expunge the word from our vocabulary, on the grounds that none of us are "responsible" in the accepted use of that term?) What's more, it's hard to see how the word carries any meaning in Harris' particular usage, because it seems impossible to operationalize in any useful way. How can one determine whether or not a person's actions were "an extension" of their internal mental states, when one has no access to the latter? Likewise, why does the author assume that such mental states (desires and the like) are causes of behavior, instead of what many experts now consider to be mere epiphenomena that do not occupy a link in a causal chain? Further, what about the roles of influences that even the individual is unaware of -- given the existence of unconscious behavior, subconscious motives, and the penchant for self- deception? In other words, does Harris' abstract position allow us to judge to what extent a person is "responsible" (in his sense) for a given action in anything like a real world situation?

"Dispensing with the illusion of free will allows us to focus on the things that matter -- assessing risk, protecting innocent people, deterring crime, etc." Fair enough -- let's change behavior by changing causal influences; and in the context of crime, let's abandon punishment for its own sake in favor of deterrence. But mythological or not, the assumption that the "I" behind my actions "makes choices" is itself a cause, one far more likely to lead to responsible behavior than the counterview that my behavior is controlled by external events. As Harris himself implicitly recognizes, a justly- delivered and appropriate punishment that is based on the assumption that a freely- choosing individual caused their own actions is itself a deterrent, a causal influence on future behavior.

Currently in the news is the trial of an American man who kidnapped and imprisoned women in his home for up to ten years, subjecting them to unimaginable abuse. With tears in his eyes, the perpetrator insists that he is not a monster, but that he's "sick", a victim of impulses out of his control. The internet is to blame, he insists, and his addiction to sex. While undoubtedly ignorant of the philosophical arguments, the perpetrator has been influenced by the Zeitgeist they have created. Thus he seeks to shift the focus from his actions and his victims to the alleged causes of his behavior, a shift intended to allow him to escape consequences of his actions. How would we apply the abstract anti- free will position to a case like this? Perhaps the prosecution and defense should hire competing teams of experts to testify on whether the perpetrator's actions were caused by proximate external influences or by more distant influences that are part of his psychological make-up. In other words, does it ultimately matter one way or another in real- world situations what position we take on the abstract question? Or is the anti- free will position no more than fodder for abstract academic discussions and college classes in philosophy?

Notwithstanding its arguable flaws, Sam Harris' book articulates clear, concise, eloquent, and incisive arguments against a root assumption that nearly all people make about their own behavior and that of others. The book is replete with questions that thoughtful people should think about, and offers answers that challenge assumptions of a pre- scientific age, assumptions inherent in beliefs promoted by the monotheistic religions. Given the merits of this book, the above review may well be unduly hard on a work that surely was not meant to be the final word on the subject. If so, don't blame me; I'm not responsible. My behavior was caused. :-) ( )
3 vote danielx | Aug 3, 2013 |
Showing 1-5 of 15 (next | show all)
no reviews | add a review
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
Epigraph
Dedication
For Hitch
First words
The question of free will touches nearly everything we care about.
Quotations
Last words
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Publisher series
Original language

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English

None

Book description
Haiku summary

No descriptions found.

In this enlightening book, Sam Harris argues that free will is an illusion but that this truth should not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom; indeed, this truth can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.… (more)

(summary from another edition)

Quick Links

Swap Ebooks Audio
1 avail.
67 wanted
2 pay1 pay

Popular covers

Rating

Average: (3.78)
0.5 1
1
1.5
2 5
2.5
3 25
3.5 7
4 41
4.5 7
5 16

Audible.com

An edition of this book was published by Audible.com.

See editions

Recorded Books

An edition of this book was published by Recorded Books.

» Publisher information page

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 96,729,036 books! | Top bar: Always visible