Original web address: http://sites.google.

com/site/journaloftheaofmn/the-short-
case-against-fully-caused-and-contra-causal-as-objective-arguments Includes live
links to references.

The Short Case Against "Fully Caused" and "Contra-causal" as Objective Arguments

9-21-09

by Curtis Edward Clark (freeassemblage)

Q. 1. What does "fully caused" mean?

A. According to those who use the phrase (see next question) it means that man
cannot make himself from clay, and that he must accept that he is a puppet, to
some extent, of the universe; that while Man has some causal effect over what he
does with what he is given to work with, the fact that he is given anything
without his choice, without his power to refuse what is given him, makes him
"fully caused."

This state of being "fully caused" means that while he has some freedom over his
choices, the fact that he is "caused" to made choices that are not of his design
leaves him with a will power that is not free of those causes. A will that is free
of causation would be called "contra-causal". Since the adherents of free will do
not argue that free will is contra-causal, the argument that it must be contra-
causal to be free is irrelevant, designed either from ignorance of the
intentionality of the phrase "self-made", or designed purposely for socio-
political reasons. This article will argue the second instance to be the case.

Q. 2. Why do some authors use the phrase "fully caused" and "contra-causal will"?
A. The philosophical naturalism of a large number of authors [1] is the attempt to
equate "self-made soul" with "ex nihilo" self-made man. This argument is not
deduced to be the case by this author; the ex nihilo argument is made directly on
some of the pages of the website referenced below.

The argument on the side of these philosophical naturalists--a phrase specifically

found on the site to which their names are attached--is to make ridiculous the
concept of a man being able to direct his own conscience/soul; but the argument is
not made against the self-made conscience/soul. It is ridiculously used in the ex
nihilo situation. What this ex nihilo argument deliberately fails to take into
account is that those who argue in the positive for the "self-made soul"
absolutely and consciously take into account the results of the "causes", properly
called the acquisition of knowledge from experience.

"Fully-caused", thereby, becomes a red herring attempt to discredit the idea of a

"self-made" man as impossible. It declares that adherents of the concept of "self-
made" man are arguing from the "self-made ex nihilo" position, in effect declaring
that someone, somewhere, thinks a man can create himself from the clay and other
minerals of the universe as though he had the powers of god. Again, this argument
is not deduced to be the case by this author; it is stated explicityly on the
site. [See the article Red Herring]

Q. 3. On what grounds are we expected to accept the premise?

A. That man does not have the powers of god; and that he is subject to reality.

Q 4. On what grounds must we deny the premise?

A. That adherents of the principle of free will do not argue for Man as having
this ex nihilo power of god, never suggested it, never hinted at it, and find it
to be a ridiculous supposition to make about the nature of free will;
And that the adherents of free will do not claim free will is contra-causal or
could be contra-causal: indeed, that to be contra-causal would require the
impossible condition that man be free of reality, in which case he would be free
of the need to make choices, in which case he would have no will power over
anything in existence since he is free of existence, thereby negating the very
existence of free will itself.

Q. 5 Why is the red herring arguments of "fully caused" and of "contra-causal"

free will socio-political in origin?
A. The website itself has the purpose, stated in every paragraph, of leading to
the conclusions made here and there (on the site) that "compassion" and "justice"
are not served by the belief that Man can extricate himself from those undesired
"causes" upon his existence, which in turn "caused" him to make some necessary
choices in his life; that you and I could probably not have done any better at
managing our own lives; and that "our lot in life" is to be fully caused to find
injustices in the nature of having to deal with existence.

In other words, the site makes the ipso facto argument that "life isn't fair" and
therefore compassion dictates we understand that we could be the person in the
liquor store with the gun in our hand or be the one with the needle in our arm, or
be the one to have the sense of gloom-and-doom that sends us over the edge to
murder our schoolmates.

[1] Advisory Board of the Centerfornaturalism.Org

Susan Blackmore,Paul Bloom,Paul Broks,Daniel Dennett,Sheldon Drobny,Owen
Flanagan,Joshua Greene,Ursula Goodenough,Joseph Hilbe,Nicholas Humphrey,Brian
Leiter,Thomas Metzinger,Tamler SommersJohn Symons
Allies of the same website includes at least forty-one authors, schools, and other
institutions including websites and blogs.