As someone who has struggled with alcohol addiction, I have to say that I think there isn’t always a bright line between can and can’t. My best analogy is to confession under torture. How should we judge someone’s claim that, “I couldn’t bear the torture any longer, so I confessed.” It seems like Bryan would have to say that this is false. What does it take to not confess? Just don’t open your mouth to speak and it’s done. Obviously, it’s reasonable in common parlance to say “can’t” when what one literally means is that the costs of doing something are so overwhelming that they choose not to do it. This is the experience of many people who struggle with addiction. It is obvious that we possess the physical capability to not consume a beverage. But the psychic costs of resisting a drink can often be so overwhelming that statements like “I couldn’t resist” feel justified (though of course they are literally false). I do think certain people who have never struggled with an addiction have a psychological blind spot when it comes to correctly assessing addicts’ actions and statements. For those who have never had the experience of addiction, a helpful empathy exercise can be to imagine how you would feel if you tried to resist eating any food or keep yourself in solitary confinement for a long period of time. The anguish you would feel along with the practically irresistible urge to break your fast or solitude is very similar to what many alcoholics feel when they try to stop drinking. That’s why many addicts describe their experiences attempting to get sober as hellish. They are not exaggerating. Hence, simplistic admonitions like, “just don’t drink alcohol,” are worse than useless. To know what it feels like to hear that as an alcoholic just imagine someone telling you “just never see or talk to another human again.” It’s not impossible, but it is a brutally painful way to live and some may legitimately prefer death.
I once had a student who failed basic finance three times with three different professors. Then she took my section, reputed to be the hardest, and got one of the top grades. How? By doing the required work as I laid out. How do I know? Because I monitored her. As they say in the military, the troops do what the sergeant inspects.
I feel like it mostly just boils down to how people use the word "can't". "He can't do the math" doesn't neessarily mean "he can't do the math no matter how much help he gets and how much effort he puts in", to me it means "he is unable to do the math given his current abilities" and it is not a statement of whether he will ever be able to do it.
The final point is greatly exaggerated. If an alcoholic declines a drink once, they are cured? "Can't stop drinking" and "unable to decline a drink" are clearly not equivalent statements!
It may be implicit in your essay, but there is also the element of practice or preparation. You could certainly say of me right now, "He can't reliably sink 8 out of 10 shots from the free-throw line", but even at the age of 70, I am sure that with focus and practice, I could learn again how to do that. Thus, to say that someone "can't" do something doesn't mean that it is forever beyond their ability, but that they need to develop their abilities. On the other hand, I am red-green color blind, and there is no amount of practice that will allow me to correct this. These distinctions must be kept in mind in this discussion.
Pure common sense. But you'd have to overturn most of Western liberalism's post-60s direction of travel for common-sense like this to gain any traction. What about (to take just one example) the 90% of the population who, we are told, now "have mental health issues"? They "can't" do anything about that; not without the "help" of the Mental Health industry.
The main problem is, the more rigorously you think about the metaphysics of causation, the more difficult it becomes to coherently characterize a meaning of "can do" that's different from the meaning of "does".
"He could have had his neurotransmitters chemically interact differently in that moment." Does that make sense, or not?
From a physicalist perspective, "could have but didn't" just means something like "didn't, in a way that I'm inclined to morally judge". Which is a fine distinction, even an essential one for any significant society to exist.
As someone who has struggled with alcohol addiction, I have to say that I think there isn’t always a bright line between can and can’t. My best analogy is to confession under torture. How should we judge someone’s claim that, “I couldn’t bear the torture any longer, so I confessed.” It seems like Bryan would have to say that this is false. What does it take to not confess? Just don’t open your mouth to speak and it’s done. Obviously, it’s reasonable in common parlance to say “can’t” when what one literally means is that the costs of doing something are so overwhelming that they choose not to do it. This is the experience of many people who struggle with addiction. It is obvious that we possess the physical capability to not consume a beverage. But the psychic costs of resisting a drink can often be so overwhelming that statements like “I couldn’t resist” feel justified (though of course they are literally false). I do think certain people who have never struggled with an addiction have a psychological blind spot when it comes to correctly assessing addicts’ actions and statements. For those who have never had the experience of addiction, a helpful empathy exercise can be to imagine how you would feel if you tried to resist eating any food or keep yourself in solitary confinement for a long period of time. The anguish you would feel along with the practically irresistible urge to break your fast or solitude is very similar to what many alcoholics feel when they try to stop drinking. That’s why many addicts describe their experiences attempting to get sober as hellish. They are not exaggerating. Hence, simplistic admonitions like, “just don’t drink alcohol,” are worse than useless. To know what it feels like to hear that as an alcoholic just imagine someone telling you “just never see or talk to another human again.” It’s not impossible, but it is a brutally painful way to live and some may legitimately prefer death.
I once had a student who failed basic finance three times with three different professors. Then she took my section, reputed to be the hardest, and got one of the top grades. How? By doing the required work as I laid out. How do I know? Because I monitored her. As they say in the military, the troops do what the sergeant inspects.
I feel like it mostly just boils down to how people use the word "can't". "He can't do the math" doesn't neessarily mean "he can't do the math no matter how much help he gets and how much effort he puts in", to me it means "he is unable to do the math given his current abilities" and it is not a statement of whether he will ever be able to do it.
The final point is greatly exaggerated. If an alcoholic declines a drink once, they are cured? "Can't stop drinking" and "unable to decline a drink" are clearly not equivalent statements!
It’s the first step. “Not today. Maybe tomorrow.”
It may be implicit in your essay, but there is also the element of practice or preparation. You could certainly say of me right now, "He can't reliably sink 8 out of 10 shots from the free-throw line", but even at the age of 70, I am sure that with focus and practice, I could learn again how to do that. Thus, to say that someone "can't" do something doesn't mean that it is forever beyond their ability, but that they need to develop their abilities. On the other hand, I am red-green color blind, and there is no amount of practice that will allow me to correct this. These distinctions must be kept in mind in this discussion.
Just learn to bioengineer your eyes!
Pure common sense. But you'd have to overturn most of Western liberalism's post-60s direction of travel for common-sense like this to gain any traction. What about (to take just one example) the 90% of the population who, we are told, now "have mental health issues"? They "can't" do anything about that; not without the "help" of the Mental Health industry.
Great post, thanks.
Yep, how far free-will goes is a stubborn problem.
Can go from - there is no free-will, to, humans are responsible for every decision.
Judeo/christian tradition takes a balanced approach.
‘Made in the image of God’.
Fallen into inability to reflect God correctly.
Repentance shows which failures are intentional or unintentional.
Unrepentant - free choice.
Repentant - human weakness.
Still a pretty good insight.
Thanks
Clay
The main problem is, the more rigorously you think about the metaphysics of causation, the more difficult it becomes to coherently characterize a meaning of "can do" that's different from the meaning of "does".
"He could have had his neurotransmitters chemically interact differently in that moment." Does that make sense, or not?
From a physicalist perspective, "could have but didn't" just means something like "didn't, in a way that I'm inclined to morally judge". Which is a fine distinction, even an essential one for any significant society to exist.