What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Will: A Response to Sam Harris
Do we have free will? Leading atheist Sam Harris says, No! We are just puppets of unconscious forces. Kurt Keefner responds, Yes! Our power to explore the world makes us free. In this extended essay, Keefner answers the arguments in Harris’ 2012 book "Free Will" and then provides a more realistic and nuanced portrait of how we make choices. Ironically, concludes Keefner, Harris is the victim of leftover religious notions in his thinking."Bottom line, Keefner’s book is a must read for anyone interested in the current state of the free will debate." -Eric Field, Examiner.com
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
32 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 26, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 25, 2014
I am not entirely sure Keefner grasps the points that Harris is trying to make in Free Will.
While making a valid point about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, his view seems to be conflicting. He states:
That was one example of why I could not get behind the argument Keefner presented. The rest could probably be surmised by saying that the impression I got through Keefner's writing is he remains skeptical of the evidence Harris presents in some places and ignores it in others, without providing evidence of his own. All the while applying literary reductionism to Harris' ideas without acknowledging the interaction of them as Harris intended.
It is definitely worth a read if you have read Harris' Free Will because if nothing else it helps you to realise that as pragmatic as Harris is, he may be wrong. But in saying that, I'm sure he would be the first to acknowledge this if it were proven to be true.
While making a valid point about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, his view seems to be conflicting. He states:
The atoms or neurons we are made of don’t cause us to be conscious. Our atoms and neurons are conscious. Our atoms and neurons make choices. It’s not that individual atoms and neurons are conscious and make choices, but in the right organization...But in the following paragraph he errs by denouncing reductionism for its breaking down the analysis of a complex system by observing the smallest parts; He wholly ignores the idea supported by reductionism that he agrees with, which is the analysis of the interactions of those parts.
That was one example of why I could not get behind the argument Keefner presented. The rest could probably be surmised by saying that the impression I got through Keefner's writing is he remains skeptical of the evidence Harris presents in some places and ignores it in others, without providing evidence of his own. All the while applying literary reductionism to Harris' ideas without acknowledging the interaction of them as Harris intended.
It is definitely worth a read if you have read Harris' Free Will because if nothing else it helps you to realise that as pragmatic as Harris is, he may be wrong. But in saying that, I'm sure he would be the first to acknowledge this if it were proven to be true.
December 31, 2013
His argument begins respectably but disintegrates as he attempts to redefine free will on a shallow basis.
April 20, 2021
This is an interesting analysis of Sam Harris's argument for determinism. Keefner argues that Harris's view depends on adopting a Cartesian mind-body dichotomy as a paradigm. The mind and the body are separate and distinct entities and free will is defined as the mind acting independently and freely without influence from the body or the world or anything else. Harris then argues that this is not the case, hence there is no free will.
Not having read Harris, I don't know if this is an accurate representation of Harris's position.
But Keefner goes on to argue that Harris uses a faulty paradigm to make his case. There is no mind-body dichotomy. The mind and the body are integrated. Keefner argues that you must consider the human being as an integrated organism.
Ultimately he argues that free will involves making complex choices. That it involves analyzing reality and integrating one's actions according to one's perception of and understanding of reality. Harris argues that choice must come ex nihilo, out of nothing, to be free. Keefner argues that this is a false supposition.
Above all, free will means making a choice to engage with the world, to make an effort, rather than be buffeted by forces beyond your control. It means choosing to think.
This is an important concept. Although Keefner is influenced by Ayn Rand's views on free will in this regard, Rand is hardly the only one to have made this point. Significantly, Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, argues that Eichmann's evil was his refusal to think, his refusal to consider his actions in a wider context. He was literally buffeted by the forces around him. He was a ping pong ball in the Nazi universe. He was only obeying orders. He refused to exercise his free will.
One might say that free will is essential to any coherent view of morality.
Not having read Harris, I don't know if this is an accurate representation of Harris's position.
But Keefner goes on to argue that Harris uses a faulty paradigm to make his case. There is no mind-body dichotomy. The mind and the body are integrated. Keefner argues that you must consider the human being as an integrated organism.
Ultimately he argues that free will involves making complex choices. That it involves analyzing reality and integrating one's actions according to one's perception of and understanding of reality. Harris argues that choice must come ex nihilo, out of nothing, to be free. Keefner argues that this is a false supposition.
Above all, free will means making a choice to engage with the world, to make an effort, rather than be buffeted by forces beyond your control. It means choosing to think.
This is an important concept. Although Keefner is influenced by Ayn Rand's views on free will in this regard, Rand is hardly the only one to have made this point. Significantly, Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, argues that Eichmann's evil was his refusal to think, his refusal to consider his actions in a wider context. He was literally buffeted by the forces around him. He was a ping pong ball in the Nazi universe. He was only obeying orders. He refused to exercise his free will.
One might say that free will is essential to any coherent view of morality.
December 26, 2014
A convincing rebuttal, for reasons I explained on Disruptive Dissertation. This idea makes a lot of sense: what we describe in ourselves as "conscious" is not neatly separable from what we describe in ourselves as "unconscious," and so it isn't precise to say that unconscious processes are always shoving around our conscious processes. Free will makes sense if you consider the entire organism as a package with some unconscious parts, some conscious parts. It's the whole package, not just the conscious side, that has free will.
June 25, 2012
Keefner's defense of free will is done here in a cogent and concise way, without unnecessary technical jargon common in many philosophical discourses on the subject. He uses plain language to knock down Harris's assertions one by one and this treatise will make a fine addition to the discussion of free will
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews