Admittedly, I'm coming into this argument a little halfway through, so I apologize for my manner, but as I read Neysha's arguments, they suggested to me that she's saying there's a reason the Humanities and STEM fields are separated, and why cross-disciplinary study is not always of paramount value. We all seem to be in agreement that we at the very least need to respect the value of our opposite field (I happen to think the STEMs are a little more guilty of it than we are, but that might be my own) tendency to vilify coming through.
First of all: Thank you. The courtesy you're displaying here is all too rare, and greatly appreciated. That said, the part I'm objecting to is less "these are different fields" (though I think there is a false division in place); it's "...and the overwhelming majority of humanities should be electives with no emphasis put on them at all". Cross-disciplinary study isn't of paramount value, but I see things like epistemology for any science, or history for anthropology, are less "cross-disciplinary" and more "foundational".
Apologies, I didn't mean to rule you out entirely, and would of course appreciate input in regards to where you think the definition of free will factors into the debate. I hope you would understand though why I might be a bit embittered against the apparent appeal away from the present argument towards a discussion of 'definitions', and a generalization regarding 'things not always being as simple as they seem'.
Again, thank you. I am deeply impressed with your reconsideration here. I... can understand, yes; I was trying to lead to, rather than push, my perspective as the latter has generated hostility before, but I guess I was too low-information. I do think rigorous definitions are important, though. "Free will", as I usually see it conceptualized, is the idea that, when a decision comes up, we could take any of the options available. To avoid a long chain of "Yes, but what does X mean?", I'll cut to the point: "could" strikes me as illusory. When we say "I could do X", what we really mean is "I see a physically possible chain of events that would result in me doing X". Regardless of how many options you "could" choose, you will
choose specific ones, and these would be predictable by a system that had perfect information.
Suppose for a moment we quit quibbling over who said what and take a moment to consider the implications of a vocational secondary education system which allowed for electives truly be just that: passions, and pursuits not to be required by curricula, but options which everyone could pursue in their own time with likeminded individuals? My concern would be the potential for overspecialization in a specific field (where STEMs are concerned), but I don't see it as insurmountable. Perhaps even preferable to the generalized factory model education system that we have here in the states.
That system would be desirable, but we would need to make sure electives aren't necessary. Philosophy strikes me as necessary to science, at least in the form of epistemology; similarly, I think a significant percentage of philosophers could benefit from learning to ask "If this idea were true, what would the world look like?"
So... bad time to point out that "deepity" isn't really a word?
If I'm going to accept "truthiness", I'll accept "deepity". Especially since they seem to be closely related concepts - the illusion
, at least to the speaker and certain groups, of truth or depth.