What are your thoughts on this passage by Paul-Henri Thiry

it's an interesting quote. it seems to imply that all behavior has an ultimate, exterior cause. for instance, although it doesn't state this explicitly, the man who casts another out a window, also does so from an "impulse that springs from within his own peculiar machine, having its more remote cause also exterior."

it would also be interesting to know what the author's views on religion are. some religious thinkers, like Aquinas for instance, define God as the first, or uncaused, cause.

I think that the quote is meaningless because the writer's definition of "peculiar machine" covers all objections.It may be said to have meaning as an invitation to a debate within a group of sophists but the debate will resolve itself into entertainment and,as such,be no different from a game of cards.
This is probably the reason why I have never heard of the guy.He may just as usefully been grunting.

So, Etruscia, you're writing an essay. Well, Canada, you have a tough one there. I have never heard of Thiry either, but I would speculate that it's the difference between murder and suicide and whether or not one is a cultural thing and the other an individual thing.

I would approach your essay from that view point.

Letty-

I think the quote is dismissive of the idea of individuality.He seems to mean that a suicide has been murdered by circumstances which are exterior in some way.Wasn't something like that the basis of the Manson defence?

spendius, i'm glad you mentioned the phrase "peculiar machine." i should have said in my response that in my view it reflects the author's position that human beings are in principle machines; thus, all human behavior is explicable on the basis of material conditions, without the need for anything immaterial like a soul or even free will.

The judge and jury in the Manson trial didn't buy that and quite rightly too.

Well, folks. It's up to our young writer to assume a stance. As for Charles Manson. He was born in West Virginia, I think, and abused. Can't know for certain about that, but circumstances do make a difference. It would seem to me, though, that his control over his "family" might imply individualism. I personally don't think that we are machines, but maybe Thiry does, in theory.

Actually, i guess i should have posted the excerpt from a chapter of his that came with the quote. Here http://www.aristotle.utoronto.ca/q3.html

My view, from what the quote and the passage is that he is explaining his deterministic views. That whether the man throws himself out the window, or whether someone else throws himself are just different methods for an inevitable result. Thus negating free will. I think im going to try and refute it in my essay, also the essay requires no further reading other than the passage.

my 2 cents worth on Manson: i'm unfamiliar with his defense strategy, but it sounds like they were relying on behavioral psychology, which is a form of environmental determinism.

i may as well say that as an agnostic, i don't know if i have free will, but i act on the assumption that i have it; but of course, if there is no free will, then i have no choice about whatever i happen to believe.

letty, regarding the idea that we're machines, i think that's how cognitive scientists see the brain, as a computer, and once they reverse-engineer the software, it could run on a digital computer as well as the biological kind. anyway, there's some neurological evidence that the intuitive notion of free-will may be incomplete, from findings that the conscious intention to do something may actually follow the action, rather than precede it.

spendius, the jury was certainly correct to reject a determinism defense. justice presupposes that individuals choose to perpetrate evil or good; there's no morality without free-will.

It does depend on what is meant by "justice".It might be more correct to say that the justice system could not allow a determinism defense.If the justice system defines justice one does get tautology problems but the alternative i.e.no justice system is probably unthinkable given human nature and organised warfare.Had Manson been born in the Ivy League one can hardly imagine him doing what he did so to some extent at least he is determined.The problem comes to a head when you have capital punishment which we in Europe don't have.Thankfully.

This is what i have for my introduction, thoughts?

This passage above from Baron d'Holbach's "System of Nature" exemplifies his deterministic view that man has only the illusion of free will, but in fact is confined to a set of choices determined by previous causes, opinions and actions. If this were the case, it would negate western society's important concepts of justice, initiative, and individualism. If man did not have free will, there would be no reason to propagate the species and create societies, which have the ability to evaluate their past, and present, or make predictions for the future.

There are a couple of changes I would suggest.

I would tone down the first sentence in order to leave open the possibility that he was merely playing with words."Seems to exemplify" for example."His presumably deterministic view." And then "which opens up the possibility that man etc."

Also-there are reasons to propagate aside from these things.
The last sentence is confusing as to its meaning.You qualify "societies".If you remove the comma after "societies" it is clearer but then I
wouldn't go with it.You ought also to distinguish between simply propagating and creating societies.

I would probably substitute "alter" for "negate".

I hope that's some use.

spendius, you bring up an interesting angle on jurisprudence. in a typical death penalty case, the circumstances of a defendant's childhood would be introduced as mitigating factors during the penalty phase, so there's leeway for considering external influences in deciding to impose the death penalty. my personal feeling is that some crimes do merit execution, but only when there are adequate safeguards to prevent an irreversible miscarriage of justice.

The fact that they take childhood factors into mitigation at all surrenders the case.The possibility exists of childhood factors which are not understood by anybody in the court including the defendant or counsel.
The elites of Europe are totally opposed to the death penalty.There are many reasons besides the one we are discussing.As things stand the USA is disqualified from entry into the EEC.

spendius, just to play devil's advocate, there's a fellow named Jean-Claude Romand, serving a lifeterm for murdering his wife, his two kids, and his parents. he also attempted to murder his mistress, and he may have been involved in the earlier deaths of his in-laws, all in an effort to cover up the fact that he didn't have a medical degree or a position with WHO in Geneva. since French authorities haven't seen fit to hospitalize him, i presume he is indeed guilty and not insane. can any mitigating circumstance justify leniency for crimes this monstrous?

I don't think being banged up for life is leniency.

The guy seems pretty insane to me.But that's not really the point.The process is barbaric by our way of thinking but I must admit if there was a free vote of the whole population we would do it too.But the elite decide such things here.Thankfully.

Idontthinkthatthereaderneedbeconcernedaboutwherethecauseoriginatesbecausethatmerelyplacestheproblematafurtherremove
.