Question

Hello and blessings! As I understand it from your YouTube lecture on will: the rule of lex specialis can be used when there are two theories that conflict, and then you don’t adopt the theory that contradicts the other, but rather the more restrictive one. In your example, on the one hand there is the prohibition against murder, and on the other hand, the commandment to “kill” a Sabbath desecrator. *And all this is when there are two existing theories that conflict.* Compared to free will: there is a theory of causality in the movement of an electron in the brain, and the second is free choice. So then we adopt choice, which restricts causality. Up to here, I think it’s fine. The next step is difficult. How can I infer that there really are two standing theories here? Is it only because I have this kind of intuition of choice? That’s begging the question! We’re trying to generate two theories and make peace between them… but there’s no need, because they never existed in the first place. As I understand it, you are assuming as a fact the very thing we are trying to prove, and thereby, through that rule, giving room to restrict causality. After all, it’s simpler to say there is no contradiction, and in truth there is nothing that poses any difficulty for causality. And as for the intuition, we’ll leave it as a refined and very fascinating collective feeling… but no more than that. And I’m not claiming there is no third option, as in the example of elections—I haven’t ruled that out. But from there to adopting it as a theory? That just creates problems. P.S. — something here is probably wrong; I would be very glad for a correction! Thanks in advance!