Hey, what's up coach? Welcome back to the podcast. Today we interview coach Jim Swift. Jim is the owner of Swift Performance Training based in San Antonio, Texas. Jim has been part of our consulting program over the last year. He's an awesome dude, great coach, super successful. I think you'll learn a lot from today's interview with how he was able to build a six-figure training business. Yeah, so that place is already like, you know, lower six figures into debt still. And it was the marketing was bad. I mean, for the 20,000 square foot facility, it was like $20,000 a month just for rent. So that alone puts a lot of pressure on you.  So there's a lot of pressure on that. We all kind of broke apart and went to a goals gym. And we did pitch the sports formers idea to them just because they have like 25 locations in the San Antonio area. And there's enough parents there with kids. We thought it was a great idea, but they were focusing on gold's fit to compete with people leaving for CrossFit. That was all they cared about. So I ended up doing a lot of like kind of picking up athletes that I had trained before at the other place of velocity and trained them on the outside. Eventually I got fired because I had created my own website, social media, you know, the whole no-compane thing that you obviously apparently can do in Texas, I don't know. So that was just coming up in five years. Labor Day weekend, that'll be five years that they let me go and everything. And that was about five months before I was going to leave my own in 2016. So you were already planning on leaving anyway? I was planning on, yeah. The hardest part was not having enough money tucked away to make that leave. Right. How many kids were you training when they fired you? I mean, I had like 10 kids, but they were all going to be like sophomores, juniors, and seniors. But if I get fired Labor Day weekend and most of my sports are football, it's football season. I have no clients now. Right. So I was once again starting from, you know, ground up and any kids I did have that trained was very little just on the weekends mainly. And then I found some adults in my area, they were, you know, I say adults like 20s and 30s to train. And I was doing that in my apartment gym. So just kind of faking it until I make it and everything else, just kind of figuring out how I went. And luckily that year, the kids I did train did really well. One of them ended up being all city and everything as a running back. And that brought along like six of its teammates into the year. And then that brought along all the rival schools. So that just kind of started up. And every year I've gotten a little bit better, a little bit smarter at things, things have come, you know, with trial and error more established. A lot of the things when I first, I would say when I first went through your, like some of your, you know, do yourself programs and everything, a lot of that stuff, I was like, man, I did do some of that already. Or I looked at that, that didn't work out too well at first, but maybe that's something I can go back to. But a lot of that resonated with me because I didn't realize how much of that I was pushed into. I mean, a lot of it is going to be trial and error. It was never a perfect recipe, but you got to have some sort of structure to it. So all that was building up. I, you know, end up having several more all city in all state football players, girls running track volleyball players, baseball players, a lot of recognition from those standings. And then, you know, all them getting scholarships. So doing that, I finally kind of got more into the private side of training or at least private small groups, so I can add in the weight training and add in my fitness side with nutrition, which really helps out with parents. So I was adding, I've been adding the complete package for at least three and a half out of the last five years now. And, you know, this is and now I'm moving more into, I think we had mentioned to you more into office alignment, defense alignment, because there's an office alignment trainer here that teaches me a lot of stuff. I go through a lot of the same materials. So when I do my sports forms training, and we have linemen, I try to do the athletic side, but also know how I can relate that information so they know how it carries over. But then also know how I can modify things to where it fits more into their position. And so pretty much when that guy, he's part time whenever he doesn't want to take on anybody else, he gives them to me. And I kind of go through the basics of position training, but also building that foundation for, you know, being a faster, stronger athlete. Gotcha. So do you feel like you're starting to niche down more with like football? Yeah. Football is always a favorite. And down here in South Texas, you know, and just Texas in general football is king, but definitely South Texas, you are, if you're male, you're probably football first, and then maybe you do wrestling, track and baseball. So I mean, I'll naturally get some of those other guys just because they're also football players. But as far as what kind of football players, I think it went from, maybe if I did like 40 athletes in a year, I maybe had like three office alignment. And now this past year, I only had like five kids who weren't office alignment. So it's five. Yeah. So it's definitely moving in that way. And I'm actually loving it. They're in football. They're definitely some of the hardest workers. Their ankle sore, they'll still come in, you just modify. They're not going to be like anything a week off. They'll get down to work as long as you can modify and work around that ankle.  No, I saw that little clip you sent me. You were on the news a couple of days ago. Those are huge. Yeah. No, that was awesome. And that guy, so the guy that works at the news station, he works out at the gym that you go to. Is that right? Yeah. His trainer came from Gold's Gym that I used to be at. When it's all the gyms that closed down right when they reopened, he decided to leave corporate.  He had all the clientele. Our gym is only like a mile and a half away from the other place. So it's perfect. And, but yeah, that guy's has been at our gym for since June. And he was always watching me train the athletes this summer. And then he kind of just popped, you know, he was walking by just kind of having a small conversation. I was like, oh, maybe I didn't know he was. I haven't really watched like local news sports in a while. And I knew the familiar. And I just, I just assumed he was somebody who had kids who played sports or used to play sports. And he just loved talking to kids about what they do still. And then, and then he approached me the next day about doing an interview with my guys. That's cool. Yeah. No, that was a really cool piece they did on that. Because they, I saw, I don't know if I watched all day, but they were interviewing the kids and then they had you on and they showed a lot of the different exercises and stuff that you're putting them through. Yeah, no, that's awesome. What do you think has been the biggest business lesson that you've had to learn since you've started and owned and operated your own business? I mean, of course in sales in general, I think is just because somebody inquires and says they'll get back to you, they won't always get back to you. They might think that it's the biggest joke that you're selling or, you know, like we always said, life just gets busy. 10 other things could have popped on their radar in their household right after that.  So making sure that I do follow-ups and everything. And then of course, learning from you is don't be afraid to talk on the phone. Because even though we are in a messaging world, there's still something about talking on the phone to people. And just even to see, I think there's even something powerful about even just offering to set up a phone call with somebody that kind of like shoots differently versus like, hey, let me just text you. The one time people really don't care about that, that I'm realizing is maybe it's like, oh man, you've trained like one of my sons, older brothers, like 10 friends, like I'm ready to give my credit confirmation right now. But for the most part, if you'd at least just offer to set up a like a phone call, you know, 20, 30 minute phone call, there's definitely something powerful about that in a text messaging, instant messaging world. So I would definitely tell everybody if you're not comfortable with that, get used to it, even just on a minimal level. And then the other organized part is in the beginning I did just do like cash walk-ins and I got very lucky that I had so much consistency but if I could go back, you know, it would definitely try to assert myself, you know, be a little more confident with having to take at least a month upfront, you know, get credit card information, something like that. But that's all trial and error right there. And I could say I'd go back and change that, but it also worked out to where, you know, I wasn't confident yet. But you know, it's what it is. It's been all you look at it. Yeah, I look back at those days when I was doing cash and check. Like I would go back and try to do things differently. But I know if I didn't do that way, like it wouldn't have forced me to figure things out the way that I did. Because I mean, I just ran into a lot of bad customers who would say they would pay and they wouldn't. And it was just because I had it set up that way though. Like it was all my fault looking back at it. But yeah, and so let's talk about sales for a second. So you mentioned, you know, setting up the call, like being confident on the call. How much more confident do you feel now like talking to parents over the phone about your program than you did when you were, you know, first started training? Definitely a lot more confident. And I think the confidence comes in. I wasn't, I didn't lack confidence because I didn't think my services stunk. I thought I actually had great services and everything. And I was very scientific and groomed really well by guys who had been on the West Coast before. So I knew compared to down here that slow pace moving that it was going to be really good stuff. But I think the confidence needed for the sales cause was going to be coming from knowing what I'm going to talk about.  So, so that's helped out a lot.  Because I always like to know, like, am I getting more from the same school? Because I Churchill High School here has been a, I mean, they've been there's been family support me for like five years. And so I always want to kind of know what school they feed into around me. And I kind of like getting those numbers, but definitely asking more position, just kind of getting to know their bigger goals, not just why do you get faster? It's like, well, how does getting faster change your mind? Why I get better football? Well, how does that help? It's like, well, okay, like, I want to earn scholarship in like two years. Okay, great. That's now we're getting somewhere at you. So the questions help me control the conversation, but also dig deeper into that person. And then, you know, if you have at least, you know, even 70% of that structured already in the other 30%, you can, you have a lot of ammo to dominate with. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, that's the thing I realized is, you know, talking to, to a prospect of the phone, it's, it all comes down to how you control the conversation. Yeah. And what are the questions that you asked that get them to realize, you know what, like, this isn't something we want. This is something that we need. Right. It's just a completely different way of selling than just trying to hard sell people on why they should train with you. Cause ultimately they should, they should be able to figure out why they should train with you through the questions that you asked them, right? And it's almost there telling you why. Cool, man. And I know the last couple of years, if you're comfortable with me talking about this, like last couple of years you've done, I think over a hundred K, right? Per year. Yeah. This is even through the pandemic, this will be the third straight year that hit that mark. Cool. So let me ask you this question. Like when you first originally started, when you were training those kids on the side, when you were at your last job, like when you thought of that number, a hundred grand, like was that something that was like really far out of reach? Were you like, wow, I don't, I don't know if I can make that much or were you like, yeah, I can definitely make that. Honestly, a hundred grand, a hundred grand didn't pop in my head. My, my, my first goal was just to, um, I was like, I know I can be stable enough if I get smarter outside spending. We always talk about trainers need to be smarter outside spending, but also, um, my first goal was basically a new teacher salary in the area. I was like, that's, I think sustainable single, you know, single, no kids, no, no, nobody else support. I was like, I think that's, you know, about 51 K here. And so I was like, that's a good goal to reach for. And I was very realistic to me. Uh, my parents were teachers for 65 total years recently. And so, um, yeah, that was my first goal right there, honestly was to hit. And then, um, I started reading more on, uh, John Goodman at the personal training development center. And then, you know, he's like, he's always talking to sometimes the most simple goal to have every month, uh, one year to the next is just $1,000 more a month. And so, um, and so I was like, you know, I hit that eventually you're going to get there. And that was, and that was perfectly fine for me. Um, I was, I was like, you know, as long as it's, it's slow and steady, but it's sustainable and rather have that then hit something really big and then tank. So that was, uh, and I didn't fear tanking really, but I was like, I'm, I'm patient enough to steadily go up.  Right. So that's just, that's just how I kind of thought of it. If I can do that, then eventually I'll be somewhere. But I hadn't even thought about six figures, I guess, because I, I didn't really even know any trainers that made six figures. I was right. My, my, my thing is, trainers, they only last like two to five years maybe. Uh, and so I was like, you know, as long as I keep going up a little bit and I can last longer than five years, I'll be fine. So actually the first year I started off at, uh, the first full year on my own was at only 43 K. And then the second was 58 K, which I was let down at, cause I actually had a bigger goal of making 65 K.  Right. Good point. I was like, okay, I'll get off. Like, let me have 72 hours of my pity party and I'll get over it. Right. And then, so those, so those were the first two years and then you're three, four, now five, uh, right at six. Right. No, that's awesome, man. Yeah.  You, you talked about like the teacher salary and yeah, and, uh, it wasn't, it wasn't this unrealistic goal of, all right, I'm going to make a hundred grand my first year. Like, right. And I see a lot of people do that. Unfortunately, they, they have this, this hundred K goal when they first start. And, you know, I have seen some people who have actually pulled that off, but it's like very rare. Yeah. Um, and you know, it takes time, it takes multiple years, uh, for a lot of people to get there. And also one, one thing I want to touch on with you is like, when you think about the financial side of business, like when you, when you break down a hundred grand, how, how frugal are you with that money?  So like how, how frugal are you with like your finances? Uh, I get better every year. Um, you know, I'm definitely not as Dave Ramsey as I'd like to be, but it's definitely something you learn, uh, more and more, um, you know, once you have a little bit more money than what you're used to. And you know, if it's more than what you, uh, grew up with, then it could be a struggle, but, um, it's definitely gotten better. I have been able to pay off a lot more. Unfortunately, when I first started training, um, my, the car I had was paid off, but it had leaking head gaskets and which fixing that would have exceeded the value because it was a 90, it was a 97 SUV. So it wouldn't have, uh, the value wouldn't have been worth it. And so I ended up, um, I ended up having to get like a truck and the best deal was to get like a new Toyota Tundra, but I was like, you know, Toyota Tundra though, those are going to last like 20 years. So I was like, long term. And if that means I'm not having to spend more time out of my day in between training till I go, something patched up, something fixed very often. I was like, that's a good trade off of my opinion. I can do that. Yeah. Um, so I mean, that's probably the biggest, um, but even then that's, uh, the biggest purchase I've had to make. And then, um, I mean, uh, my girlfriend, I live in a house now and, uh, it's just making sure that you don't spend money somewhere else that you might need when you're going to like home, deep or low as it picks things up. But, uh, it's the, the frugal side is definitely getting better. It's getting smarter. Everybody's, uh, frugal side is a lot different than others. Um, and, uh, but I mean, actually it's a, it's, it gets better every year. So that's, and that's, I think that usually comes when you solidify your next three to five, 10 years out of time on what you want to accomplish, uh, even from a financial sense, like, and if that's, pay a certain amount of debt off only, like then that's, you know, something to strive for and keep you, uh, right? Yeah. I see, I see this happen and not, not just with trainers, but with most people. It's like whatever their lifestyle is, like if they're making a certain amount, if once they start making a little bit more money, their lifestyle goes up. So like they, they stay in this rat race with money where it's like they could be making, they could be crushing it, uh, making two, $300,000 in a year. And they're the purchases, the stuff that's going on with their lifestyle keeps going up. So like they're, they're not actually saving any money. Yeah. Um, they're, they're just kind of wasting it. And that's why like I went, whenever I talked to coaches over the phone, I always, I always asked them like, I mean, straight up, how much money are you making? Um, and how are you with money? And a lot, I know a lot of people like they want to make more money, but they don't know what to do with that. And then, then it just kind of, it's, I don't know, it's not really all the hard work that they put in because they're just blowing it. Um, so it's kind of, it's kind of a frustrating thing to see people do it that way, but you know, everyone's going to do whatever they want. And I know by being frugal, that's, I think that's the best possible way to run a business. And especially if you look at the last shoe man since March, like how many businesses went away because they had no cash reserves. And those are all big names too. Yeah. Like, like big names are going away. And it's like, if they're going away, like, what were they doing all that money? I mean, a lot of it was like dead circulation. Like some of these big corporate gyms I was saying for years, they're not really circulating.  Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's almost, to me, it's not even a real business. It's like they on paper, they are making billions of dollars. And then, you know, the one down month, they're done. They're bankrupt. And, uh, yeah. And I know with, with coaches and trainers, like, that's why I think it's really important to, to be really smart with the money. And I know you mentioned Dave Ramsey, I've gone, I have his book back over there in the corner. Um, yeah, just like very simple advice on like how to manage money. And those are things we never learned when we're younger. Like, yeah, it sounds crazy that, you know, we're not educated on that when we're kids. Um, it's like, you have to just kind of figure it out. And people who figure it out financially will always do better than those who don't. I mean, I, I learned a little bit growing up from my parents because they were teachers, you know, they didn't have as much money as they wanted to.  And I think that's a double-edged sword because what is a little, what does a little extra even mean?  But if you don't have that solid gap, you have like, once again, no savings, short-term or long-term. So, uh, we definitely, even if we're taught, we definitely need a little bit stricter definition of, you know, spend, you know, enjoy a little bit extra. Like that means go take a vacation once in a while. That's cool. But it's, uh, like, and I'm more down for that. I would say it's the everyday spending of going to get like Starbucks and like eating out and everything that you weren't able to do when you're younger because y'all didn't have the money to that people blow the most money over. It's the social and entertainment side. Yeah. Yeah.  And all of that adds up.  Uh, cool, man. So you've been, you've been in this game for a while. Like what's, what do you feel like is your, your goal over the next couple of years for, for your business? So I mean, I still do the, I still do the fitness side during the daytime while the kids are at school or while they're, you know, at school camps. And so I have, I have those clients.  And so I'll hold on that a little bit, but I'm definitely not a trainer who jumps that trying to have like, oh, I might five and six am or open. It's like, I try to not, I try to, I work out at five and six a.m. But that's like still my time. It's totally, it's a totally different mentality. And so, but as I've talked to you before, for the adult fitness side, I've been doing the online fitness coaching program. So the goal is to always keep building that up, you know, a little bit and that'll be a slower growth just cause that's a, that's a pretty saturated market, you know, the internet and everything. But, you know, once again, I'm all about slow and steady as long as it gets sustainable and hitting a teacher salary, even on that on top of, you know, a six figure sports businesses would be awesome. And then, so that's a goal. I did experiment of all, during all times that I'd already planned on doing more middle school camps because I felt like I need to get middle schoolers more ready for high school because we're falling behind there in that time. And that's why they're losing out on recognition, compared to other big cities in Texas for recruiting. And so I had already decided to go into more of those classes, at least in the summer, then I'll figure out during the rest of year when I can do that, at least the spring, you know, and that all happened during the pandemic. So that was, but it was good. It humbled me. I only did, I could have had a class of like 15 probably only took like eight to 10, keep it small, keep it private and exclusive. There's plenty of big places around here.  But I have high school guys like, yeah, I've done places like that, you know, after a while, you just don't really have attention. It's not really about you enough. They're like, you know, we already lose reps at school. Why would you want to go to a second place that's going to lose reps? Right. And so growing the middle school groups, and not only because I like, I want to get them ready, but my retention for kids right now is like anywhere from like two to six years. That's amazing. Yeah. So it doesn't really take me that much more kids per year to make what I want, even after the others like leave off to college and everything. And so I'm getting a little bit more middle schoolers and try to feed off that. And then then I do eventually want to add in an online athlete mentorship that I can do, all that kind of stuff. So just any way that I can bring in money, obviously without having to work from 5am to 8pm, you know, I already have the online fitness side down. So adding in the online athlete side, well, I don't 100% know how to get all that going. And it could be a little slower, which is fine. It's definitely something to consider. And I think that would even if I only do that for like three years and it was like, okay, you know, it wasn't worth my time as much. I think there's still value in learning. If you can communicate better with kids via zoom, then you could probably communicate and coach better in person anyways. Yeah, I totally agree.  Like tell everyone how much easier it is to run your business when you have your business set up that way versus like constantly having to find new clients month after month, because I can guarantee you the average person that's a trainer in any sport, their retention is probably somewhere between two and I would think two and four months. Yeah, less.  You know, I always try to go for more and more and I'll you know, I'll figure out later if I need to, you know, cap my capacity, but it definitely feels awesome that, you know, going into this summer that I think compared to last summer, there was only five of my, you know, most five of my oldest consistent athletes had went off to college recently. And all I had to do was replace some and I had and I end up signing up a group of like eight to 10 middle schoolers. I got a bunch of new linemen. I probably have like eight new kids in general in person on the one on two side. So it makes it a lot easier. A lot easier to replace, you know, a few once every year going into the summer or end of summer. And so you really get to know the kids a lot more, you kind of grow up with them and everything. And so the trust and value is always there. And parents definitely seeing your praises a lot more that's like, yeah, he's been like, well, my kid's Ryan, he's gonna be a sophomore in high school. I've been training him since the middle of his sixth grade year. That's awesome, man. Yeah. So I mean, I literally see these kids grow up. Yeah. Yeah, you'll probably see that kid till he goes off to college. Yeah. I mean, that's he's got it'll be over five years. I'm gonna have him. So that's gonna be pretty amazing. Dude, that's that's really awesome. And I know that it's funny because we live in the same city. I know I don't I mean, I live north of San Antonio now, but we've been here the whole time without ever knowing each other. I think until like two years ago, maybe two years ago. And I wish we would have connected earlier because I think that would have been really cool to know you a lot earlier on when you were starting and as I was growing my thing. But let's say there's a coach watching right now and they're like, man, you know, I want to get to Jim's level. I want to be able to train kids full time. And I want to be able to do that every single day and quit my job or whatever. What do you think could be the most valuable advice you could give to someone who's watching or listening and they're like, you know, I'm tired of my job. I wanted the sports performance trainer or just a trainer in any sport. What would you tell them? Obviously, the stuff we've been talking about on here and the stuff you talk about a lot on your channels and your podcasts, I would say play with some of that business advice on how to sell.  And then as far as training goes, whether you're going to be doing soccer, basketball, you know, speed and agility, strength training, don't try to impress and entertain social media by doing the most fancy things like that and try to reinvent the wheel. The wheel's invented is just how you drive it really and how you take care of the wheel. That's all that really matters. I have people that signed up recently that I've watched your stuff on social media for like five years and compared to every trainer we've tried and they've tried a new trainer like almost every eight months, they're like, you change some things up, but you are still the most consistent style of training. Smart style of training we've seen. And so they finally, you know, after some years took the plunge going to like their varsity years. And so find out what's tried and true. You know, you have the Facebook group talk to as many of those coaches throughout the United States on what they, that like their training philosophy is, I think talking philosophy is very important for coaches, you know, and they do that all the time. NFL, MLS, everybody has like some sort of coaching philosophy, you know, it's never really like a hundred, like 80 degree, like different or anything, but you want to study the pros and cons of different things and kind of help you fine tune your own. And but also know that what you're doing while it might be a little different, it's still similar to what some of the best, you know, trainers that do what you do are doing. What I do, I get feedback now from a friend who is a head strength coach at Longview High School now, and he was strength coaching in college. And he's like, yeah, what you're doing, he's like, we do here at Longview, Longview won the state title like two years ago. That's awesome. First time in 81 years. And then he's like, he's like a lot of what you do, we do. And we were doing in college, you're just doing a little modify because you may not have the exact same equipment as we do.  And then I've guys come back from like Columbia University, UT, A&M that are like, a lot of what you do, the exact same language and process they kind of go about in their strength training room and everything. So it's very important that not only you talk business with other people who have done business and kind of understand that stuff, but also training and training philosophies and just avoiding the fluff that's going to be trendy. People will be amazed by the simple stuff you do better than anybody else and the results you get. That's what they're going to be. They're going to be amazed that it's five years later and this guy over here is still helping kids get scholarships. These kids are still being all district, all city, all state. Right. Yeah. And when I look at the coaches that are part of our group that you're in, to me, the true sign of a successful coach, it's going to be the one who's the most consistent. That's the thing that you've done over your career here. You're not this flashy dude. You just put your head down. You know you want to help kids. You're great at what you do. You get results with kids and you just keep like recycling what you're doing over and over and over because you have a great system that has proven to work really well. And that's the thing like, I mean, it doesn't really bug me anymore. But I know like on Instagram and Facebook and stuff like that, there's a lot of people, it's just all flash. It's like all flash zero cash. And everybody wants the likes and the follows. I mean, that's all fine and dandy, but you can have 50,000 followers and only like five people giving you money from it. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And it all comes down to knowing who you want to serve and serving them. And they're going to exchange money with you because you can solve their problem, period. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and you've been a great example of just being super consistent and it's been cool to see like you post in the Facebook group, you know, the, the, all the new clients that you've added over the last year, like it's been, it's all just consistent. Like it's not just like, Hey, I did this all today. It's, you know, it's week after week. You're just very consistent guy. And that's going to be the ingredients to anyone who's looking to start or grow their business to become more successful. And yeah, I mean, you're a great example of that. And I know anyone watching or listening should model what you did because it's like, that works.   Well, you know, that's been two months.  And, uh, cool man. Now, I, you know, first I want to say thanks for jumping on here.   That's a perfect way of saying it. Don't be afraid to talk to others who have done what you've done, even if they might sound scary. You know, you never know. You could, you could be wrong about how scary they are. Everybody is honestly willing to help, especially with the whole uplifting of small businesses these days. It's kind of a good tribal thing going on right now. And then don't, don't be afraid to ask your athletes and their parents like, even if they are not complaining about anything, and they're giving you all the money, like every month, every quarter or whatever. Don't be afraid to ask anybody who has done well with you, as well as those who, they did okay with you. And unless they didn't stick as long, just be like, what can I, like, what can I do better? What can I do more of? Some people will fly out and say, it just wasn't for us because we were not committed enough. We were not consistent enough. You did everything great. You were always trying to reach out. You were always trying to, you know, raise things to a higher standard that we needed. We just were not ready. But when we are, you know, you're definitely the guy to call back. Don't be afraid to get that information. I asked, you know, for testimonies and surveys all the time for people who have trained at different links. And you just never know, even if they didn't really say a whole lot of cheering that, you know, they might have the best things, the best things that you did, even if you didn't know it yet. Okay.  Right. That's great advice because, because I know a lot of times business owners will just think whatever they do is the, is the best thing. And if someone drops out of their program, they take it personal. They're like, and then they never know why. So like a successful coach is always going to understand why people drop out or what can be done better. That way the retention grows stronger.  Because you've already gotten all that feedback because you have asked those tough questions. Very cool, man. So thanks so much for jumping on today. I'm going to be posting this here in the next couple of days and awesome, dude. Thank you. All right. Appreciate it, Ben.


one. Hello, I'm JJ Waukeen and welcome to Philosophy and What Matters, where we discuss things that matter from a philosophical point of view. Our topic for this episode is the nature of free will. We believe that we act freely most of the time. When we decide the person to love, a career to pursue, or how to live our lives, we have a sense that we are doing all these things freely and voluntarily. Since the beginning of philosophy, however, our notion of free will has been drawn into question. On the one hand, if everything is a matter of faith, as in F-A-T-E, then how can we be free? Likewise, how can we be free if everything is determined by the history of the universe and the laws of nature? Our notion of free will implies other concepts that matter to us. For example, concepts of moral responsibility and legal accountability. What happens to those things if we don't have free will? Joining us to discuss the nature of free will is my dearest friend, Brian Garrett, professor at the School of Philosophy at the Australian National University, and the author of my favorite metaphysics book, What is this thing called metaphysics? Hi Brian, welcome to Philosophy and What Happens. Hello, good to be here. Okay, so before getting into our topic, let's first discuss your philosophical background. How did you get started in philosophy, and who or what influenced you? Well, I suppose I did some philosophy at high school. I remember, not that I understood it, but I remember trying to read AJ Ayer's language, Truth and Logic, and I even plowed through all of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, which is something I could never do now, but I did then. So I remember enjoying reading them, whether I understood those other questions. And I suppose also, like a lot of people in my generation, I think I was influenced by a famous BBC series called Men of Ideas, that was chaired by Brian McGee, who's also a philosopher. This is about 1978. And he interviewed all the top philosophers of his day, you know, Ayer, Quinton, what else? Bernard Williams. Williams, Chomsky, so yeah. So that was a very good introduction to philosophy, I think. And it seems to me that you are effectively doing the same thing in the Philippines, all you the Brian McGee of Manila. Okay, thanks for the kind words. Okay, so you studied at St Andrews and Oxford. So what was it like to be in those institutions? Yeah, no, no, I was very lucky. I mean, I went to St Andrews as undergraduate to do philosophy and economics. But I certainly realized what why they called philosophy, sorry, why they called economics the dismal science. So I kind of dropped economics and did philosophy. And in fact, at St Andrews, you could do more philosophy than probably anywhere else in the country, because they had two departments, logic and metaphysics and moral philosophy.  And I suppose that the big figure there was Crispin Wright, he was the dominant presence when I was there. So he was a big influence. And then when I went to Oxford to do the Biffle-Diffle combination, again, I was fortunate to have very good teachers, people like Sir Peter Strossen just before he retired. Paul Snowden, Derek Barfitt, even had a term with Tony Quinton or Lord Quinton. I remember nothing about what he said, but I just remember that he was incredibly funny guy. It was a very amusing term anyway. So St Andrews and Oxford were a very, very useful influence. Okay, so what was it like to be under Peter Strossen, Derek Barfitt, and all those big names? How did they influence you, your way of thinking? Well, I mean, it's very good.  Yeah, I think probably Barfitt and Snowden were the ones that helped me the most. Because I think at that time they were at the kind of height of their powers or their careers, as it were. And they were very useful. Okay, so most of your work centers on topics in metaphysics. So why did you specialize in this area of philosophy? Well, I think it's largely a matter of taste. I mean, you know, when you're an undergraduate or you go through all the different topics and you find the one that you find most interesting. And I suppose eventually I settled on to it. I did my Biffle thesis on the Seriety's Paradox and my Diffle on Personal Identity. So I suppose I'm moving from philosophy of language to metaphysics. And then yeah, I just find I just find topics in metaphysics that the most interesting, you know, questions to do with free will or universals or whatever. So it's basically a matter of taste. But that's what I found most interesting. Okay, so at least in your work, so by the way, guys, to our audience, Brian Garrett has a book on Personal Identity. I use that in my dissertation as well. He was my so called supervisor while I was doing that. Okay, so only so cold. Okay, let's go to the idea of free will. How do philosophers understand the notion of free will? Right. Well, I mean, one problem to begin with is that that different philosophers understand it in different ways. So so we're really going to be talking about sort of fatalists, and then we'll be talking about compatibilists and libertarians. So we'll be tight, we'll be defining what we mean by that as we go along. But but so so one idea of what it is to act freely, which is really an issue with the fatalists and the libertarian is the idea that you act freely, just in case you have a range of alternative actions open to you. So if I'm in a situation where I have to choose between A and B, and let's say I choose a, then my choice was free, just in case I could have done B instead. So you can you can maybe call this something like the open future conception of free of free will or free action. Okay, so I think in the literature, it's also known as the principle of alternative possibilities. Yeah, yeah, it's the idea that there are alternatives open to you.  But we all think there's lots of things that you could have done instead. So at any one time, there's lots of things I can do, even though there's only one thing I will do. And what the fatalist thinks, for example, is that that's not true, right? If that was true, we'd be free. But that's not true. In fact, the only thing that we can do is just what we will do. So that's another expression of this, the open future alternative actions view of free will. So it seems a matter of having alternatives that you could have done instead. So it's like, you're saying that you're free in doing some action if you could have done otherwise. Yes, if you could have done something else. Yeah, basically. I mean, we're going to refine that a bit later. But that's the basic idea. So that's one conception of free will, which is to say we associate with a fatalist and libertarian that will come to later. But the other idea of free will, and this is what you get with the compatible list, is really that an action is free, just in case it flows from your beliefs and desires or it's explained by your beliefs and desires or some people would say caused by your beliefs and desires. And the important thing is that you're in no way interfered or manipulated by other people. So if I'm walking towards the pub, right, there's my action walking towards the pub. And if that was caused by my, you know, desire for a beer, and my belief that the pub has a beer, then my action is free. And as long as no one was coercing me or manipulating me or interfering, then my action is free. So you might call this the kind of ownership just for the sake of a label that the ownership conception of free will, because the idea is that my actions are free, just if I own them, right, just if they are the authentic expressions of my beliefs and desires. Okay, let's have a handle of this one. So you're under this conception, you're free, so long as your action was brought about or caused by your beliefs and desires. Right, right. Yeah. And I mean, as we'll see that that's meant to be compatible with determinants. That's the idea. Okay. So this is one problem to start with. There are actually two notions of free will that we have to deal with, not just one. Okay, there may be others too, at least those two. There are two main obstacles to our notion of free will. So let's start with the challenge of fatalism. So what is fatalism? And why is it a problem for our notion of well, right? Well, I mean, fatalism, I mean, so in my book, I have two different chapters. There's a chapter on fatalism, and there's a chapter on free will and determinism. And I don't think this this is not this is not just sort of bookkeeping. I think that these are two quite different ways of attacking free will. Now, fatalism is by far the oldest. And we know we find it in Aristotle. So the fatalist basically thinks that we are, you know, prisoners of fate. In other words, that we can only do what we will do. So if you go back to this picture of multiple alternatives, the fatalist thinks that we don't have multiple alternatives. That's an illusion. Anything we do, we must have done. It was inevitable that we do that thing. The word and really these alternatives open to us. So I mean, it's a bit hard to define exactly what makes an argument fatalist. But I think it's fair to say that I mean, I mean, one thing you can say, although this is just a negative condition, is that it doesn't it doesn't mention notions like determinism or indeterminism, right? That's not that's not the issue. That's the other attack on free will. So fatalism is sometimes called logical fatalism. And the idea is here is that we're trying to rely on purely logical ideas, such as the law of excluding middle that says that for all propositions P, either P or not P. Now, I don't think I mean, that's in the right direction. But I don't think it's exactly right. I mean, for one reason, I think assumptions about the nature of time and the nature of the future come in. And that's not logic, that's metaphysics. And of course, there's also theological fatalism, which again involves, you know, the assumption of God's existence, which is not logic. So it's kind of hard to define. But it's best seen by just looking at particular examples of fatalist argument. Okay, so let's look at two particular examples here. Aristotle see battle argument and the argument from antecedent. Let's start with Aristotle see battle argument. Can you give us a history first, before we get into the details? Well, I know nothing about I don't know whether this was I mean, this was discussed prior to Aristotle, it probably was. But I mean, I really have have have no idea. But this is the first argument that you normally get whenever you discuss discuss fatalism. It's the sea battle argument. So maybe you want to put it up or the slide up. Okay, so let's look at the argument here. Yeah, so so this is so the starting premise again. So this is an instance of it will exclude the middle either P or not P. So either there will be a sea battle tomorrow or there will not. That's the starting premise. So two, if there will be, then it's inevitable that there will be. If there will not be then it's inevitable that there will not be. So therefore, from one, two and three, you get four. It's either inevitable that there will be or inevitable that there won't be. And of course, this is nothing special, but sea battles or tomorrow, whatever happens at any future time is inevitable. So so that's the sport.  It doesn't it doesn't mean logically necessary. It means something like simply out with human control or influence. So it's on human control. Sorry. So that's your notion of inevitability here. Yes, yes, I define it as being something out with human control or influence. Okay. So so the question that I mean, well, there's a number of questions. I mean, one is what Aristotle himself thought of this argument. It's generally agreed that he didn't agree with the argument. But but scholars differ on where where he faulted it. And in fact, I mean, those are two ways I think in which you can fault it and different scholars think that Aristotle actually endorsed the each solution. So the question is that a good argument? And I think the answer is is no. So as I said, I think there are two ways you can resist it. I mean, I'm assuming it's a it's a valid argument. So if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. But so if we're going to question it, we have to reject one or more of the premises. So so the two strategies of reply are either to reject premise one, or to reject premises two and three. So I'll just I'll just say something about that. Now that so the first strategy. And again, some people think this was Aristotle's own view is to reject premise one. So you're rejecting the law of excluding middle. The principle that for all propositions or statements P, P or not P. Now, you might think this is very radical as a response to give up what what we're taught in first year logic as a basic law. Yeah, a law of reasoning, right? Yes, but I suppose the reason why you might, you know, the way you might try and justify it is by pointing out the kind of peculiarity of the of the propositions that you're concerned with, namely, there will be a sea battle tomorrow. And there will not be a sea battle tomorrow. So these are often called future contingents. And what you mean by that is that that their truth is not determined by anything in the present or the laws of nature. So that idea here would be let's say that there's a naval commander who tonight will decide whether or not there's going to be a sea battle. So now it has not been decided whether there'll be a sea battle or not. So it's a future contingent. Right? I mean, so for example, so there's a reason that Aristotle chose that example, as opposed to say, either the sun will rise tomorrow or the sun will not rise tomorrow. Because arguably, the sun will rise tomorrow is not a future contingent, right? That's a consequence of the laws of nature. So so so he's choosing a proposition that would count as a future contingent. So this is simply as example of a future contingent. Okay, well, I mean, some people think so that question is what what truth value should we give future contingents? So let's say there will be a sea battle tomorrow. Should we now regard that as true or false? Well, some people think the answer is no, they think precisely because it's not fixed or determined, it doesn't have a truth value. So it's neither true nor false. I suppose so. Yes, I mean, people talk about it being indeterminate. I'm not sure whether they think of that as a third value or rather the absence of either of the truth values. Again, the different ways you can go in that. But anyway, it's definitely not true. And it's definitely not false, right? So it doesn't have a truth value. I mean, they think it'll become true or it's present tense counterpart will become true or false tomorrow. But now it doesn't have a truth value because there's nothing now that makes it true or false. Okay, so how is this different from the sun will rise tomorrow? Does it have a definite value? Well, we're assuming that that that there is something now that makes it true that the sun will rise tomorrow, namely, the laws of nature. Maybe maybe some condition of the universe some earlier time. But we're assuming that because this is a human, this is the result of a human decision that's yet to be made. It shouldn't get a truth value. And there's also another consideration that's relevant here, which is the nature of the future.  It's yet to come. Well, it doesn't exist. All right, we'll stop. So I mean, CD Broad had this growing, growing universe view, where the idea was that the past and present are real. But the future is unreal. So if you thought the future was unreal, then that might be another reason to say that there will be a sea battle tomorrow is neither true nor false, because the reality that would make it true, namely, the future doesn't exist. So there's also so there could also be this metaphysical aspect to it too, could be another reason for saying that it's neither true nor false. But of course, a lot of philosophers these days would think would say that past present future are equally real, in which case you couldn't make that response. Okay, so so the point is, so the reason why this is relevant is that if you would say the same thing about there will not be a sea battle tomorrow. So both there will be a sea battle tomorrow and there will not be a sea battle tomorrow would would be not true. But if a disjunction has two disjuncts which are not true, and it's a disjunction, the whole disjunction cannot be true. One is not true. So you've shown what's wrong with the argument, it's got its opening premise is false or at least not true. So this this would be the this would be the first solution to to avoiding conclusion five, which of course we all want to avoid. Yeah, because that's the fatalist conclusion that we don't have for you well. Right, right. Okay, so if we say that this sentence, this there will be a sea battle tomorrow is indeterminate. Isn't it the case that the whole disjunction is indeterminate as well? Yeah, well, well, it doesn't, I mean, maybe but the important point is that it's not true. Because I mean, we only we only accept cogent arguments that have to have true premises. So as long as it's not true, whether you call it indeterminate or false, doesn't really matter. It's not true. And then so you have actually, so you might well say it's it's yes, you might say it's indeterminate if both disjuncts are indeterminate. Okay. What's another response to this argument? Right, well, the other response, which which may have occurred to most people is to wonder why why exactly we should accept two and three. Right, I mean, two and three are very strong claims. And we haven't really been given any argument to believe them. So I mean, I mean, so it's quite natural to think, well, I mean, if we suppose that it is true, for example, that there will be a sea battle tomorrow, how does it follow that it's inevitable? Right, that that seems to require an argument. I mean, why should truth imply inevitability? I mean, it doesn't. I mean, it may be true that I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow. But it doesn't seem to me that that's inevitable. I mean, even if I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I could have had corn flakes instead. So there seems to be a glaring gap, or at the very least, two and three need some sort of defense as to how you're supposed to move from truth to inevitability. And on the face of it, you could just deny two and three. And just say that that proposition can be true without just being inevitable. Because that the idea of collapsing truth into inevitability looks a bit too much like the faithless conclusion anyway. So we shouldn't really concede that at the outset. Right, if the end, the argument now begs the question, if that's okay. Yeah, or at least we need some support, some reason to believe two and three, because on the face of it, they look evidently deniable. Okay, so for you, what's the verdict against this particular fatalist argument? Is it any good? No, I mean, I'm happy to go with either response. I don't have any particular views on this. But I mean, either of those replies seems to me perfectly reasonable. So I don't think we have to accept five. Okay, so let's turn to another fatalist argument, the argument from anti-seedent. Okay, well, I mean, so this argument actually appears. I know you've discussed time and time travel in the famous paper by David Lewis, which is one of his most readable papers on time travel. He discusses and rejects this argument. So this is an argument. Again, you can see why it's kind of called logical in character, because it's exploiting what is called the sort of timelessness of truth. That's to say, if some proposition is true, it seems that you're entitled to prefix it with in 1800, it was true that I mean, if so, let's say, you know, Morrison is Prime Minister in 2020, well, then it was true in 1800. Morrison would be Prime Minister in 2020. So it just seems that kind of dramatically, you can always make that, that move, and you will end up with something true. And this fatalist argument tries to exploit that that so-called timelessness of truth. Okay. So let's consider this version of the argument. Right. So by happy coincidence, I am currently me too. Okay, so, so we make this move, I mean, someone might object to it, but I'm not going to object to it here. So I'm assuming that we can move to in 18, or any, any past time. No, it doesn't matter, 1800s, either. In 1800, it was true that I am currently I in 2020, drinking coffee. So I'm willing to I'm willing to grant that, okay, for the sake of argument. And then so then we have three. But I have no choice about what was true in 1800, which on the face of it sounds right. Yeah, that's true. Nothing I can do now to affect how things were in 1800. So therefore, I have no choice about whether I'm currently doing drinking coffee. In other words, my drinking coffee is not a free action. So I mean, this is so this is superficially, you know, a kind of plausible argument. Again, it seems to me it's it's it's valid. It's a valid argument in the sense that if if one two and three are true, then then four is true. So again, the question and I'm not going to question premises one or two. So so that gives you a bit of a clue as to what I'm going to reject, which is of course, premise three, right? And I would say that that and this this I think is is is Lewis is lying to that we should reject premise three. So so premise three, as I say, is superficially plausible. I mean, because obviously there's lots of things in 1800, over which I have no control or which I have no choice about, like the population of London in 1800. I have no control over that or no choice about that what that what that was. But if you look at if you look at proposition two premise two, this is a very odd truth about 1800. Now, in fact, I mean, what Lewis wants to say is it's not it's not really a truth about 1800 at all. It's actually a truth about the present disguised to look like a truth about 1800. So it's much more natural, I think, to kind of to kind of reverse the the reasoning and to say that well, actually, that there are some things I can control about 1800. I mean, because I can control I have a choice about whether I'm drinking coffee now. So I have a choice about whether or not in 1800, it was true that I'm drinking coffee now. Okay. So so the real so the problem with the faithless reasoning and you get this and other faithless arguments is that they're trying to subvert the intuitive direction of dependence. Right, so it's not that. So the wrong way to think of it is that the truth because two is true. That is somehow forcing me to drink coffee now. That's completely the wrong way around. Rather, the reason to two is only true because you are drinking coffee coffee now. Right. So once you see that, then then you see that in fact, in this case, three is premise three is just false, or at least at least there's even no reason to accept it whatsoever. We can say that because of the peculiar kind of propositions we're concerned with, we do have a choice over whether they're true, because I have a choice about what I'm currently drinking. Okay, so what's your verdict with regard to this argument? Is it any good any version of this one? No, well, I mean, my general view is that is that that I mean, I look at other faithless arguments in my book, but generally speaking, faithless arguments are always bad. They're always some false premise or there's a kind of fallacious move, or some dodgy inference. Yeah, so generally, I think that the arguments that we're calling faithless, I think are don't don't really work. They're not they're not convincing. But many people have that kind of attitude, a fatalistic attitude about life, right? That life is fated to be this way. Well, they might, but if you ask them, it's not clear what they're based on argument, or just a kind of, you know, depression. I mean, to the extent that we're trying to articulate arguments here, they don't seem to be very good. Okay, so let's turn into another challenge to the notion of free will, the challenge of determinism. So what's determinism all about? And why is it a problem to our notion of free will? Right? Well, so as I said, fatalism was around with with Aristotle. So that's an ancient idea. But the problem of determinism free will only really emerged with with the emergence of the thesis of determinism. And that only really, really came about came to the fore with with Newton and the rise of science and the enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. So I don't think people really thought in terms of determinism before this period. So sometimes people define determinism as the future that every event has a cause. Well, I don't think that quite quite captures it because you need to add that the cause, you know, determines or necessitates its effect. So I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't use that definition. I think a better idea is this simply that determinism is the view that given the laws of nature, and the state of the universe at any arbitrary time t, it's impossible for the history of the universe before and after t to be to be different or to be other than it actually is. So in a way, this is a radical metaphysical denial of alternatives. So if the universe is deterministic, then the future is determined, right? That's to say that the actual future is the only possible future. So so this is what I mean, a lot of people believed, at least until last century, you know, if you observe that the motion of the planets on this kind of the regularities that we observe around us, I suppose this gives us some sort of evidence to believe that the universe is deterministic. But of course, if that's what you think, then then there is a kind of immediate puzzle. Namely, Namely, how can how can free agents, because we are part of the universe to everything about us. So how can free agents exist in a deterministic universe? Right? I mean, if all actions are determined, because our actions are just movements of matter, bodily movements, if they are determined, how can they be free? So that's the that's the sort of initial puzzle. Okay, let's try to be clear about the thesis first. So determinism is a physicalist thesis or an empirical thesis? Well, right. Well, that's a good point. Yes, I mean, determinism is an empirical thesis, right? It's an empirical claim about how the universe is. So so even if determinism is true, it's not a necessary truth, not logically necessary, that determinism is true. So yes, so it's a thesis that it would be up to suppose, up to science to validate or to undermine. So it's not strictly speaking, a philosophical thesis. It's an empirical scientific thesis. Okay, so it's a scientific thesis that given the loss of nature and the history of the universe that we know now, the future is determined by these things. Right, right, right. Okay. So it's a problem for free will because we're part of the universe. We are determined by these laws of nature. So how can we be free if such is the case? Right. Well, I mean, I mean, it's kind of obviously a problem if you if you go for the open future or alternative paths, view of free will, I mean, you can see how there's an immediate tension there. Of course, but this is why you have we have the two different responses to this this puzzle. So there's the compatibilist and the libertarian, which are the only views really at which we have free will. So if you believe in free will, you pretty much have to be either a compatibilist or or a libertarian. And so shall I just mention those those responses? Yeah, so what is compatibilism all about in libertarianism? Yeah, yes, right. So so the compatibilists are people like Hobbes and Hume and last century, AJ Air, they're all famous compatibilists. So so you have to remember that their definition of free will. Right. So their definition was what I'm calling this ownership view that that you act freely, just in case your actions result from your own beliefs and desires. So so their idea is that my my my actions are unfree.  Then I'm unfree. But they don't think this is what they think anyway. They don't think that the mere truth of determinism undermines my my free will. Right. As long as my actions result from my beliefs and desires, and there's no external interference, then I act freely. And that's meant to be quite compatible with with the fact that we are physical beings in a physical universe completely determined. Yeah, so compatible. So the compatibilist thinks, look, no, there is no problem here of determinism and free will. They're not incompatible. They're actually compatible. And now the libertarian, of course, has the very opposite view, right? The libertarian thinks, yes, free will and determinism are indeed incompatible. And it's pretty obvious to see why, because I mean, the libertarian endorses this open future view of free will. So in fact, their definition of free will is actually explicitly indeterministic. So here's the idea. So I mean, according to the libertarian, again, if I'm faced with a choice between A and B, and I freely do A, then it must be the case that I could have done B instead. Right. But with the crucial proviso, the past and the laws of nature remaining constant. Right. So they think that when you come to a free act, a free choice between A and B, and I do A, it must be the case that I could have that instant, I could have done B instead, with the past and laws of nature remaining exactly the same as they are now. Well, that that that can only be true given in determinism, because that that possibility is what determinism rules out. So if that's what a free action is, then it can only occur in an indeterministic setting. So for a libertarian, since we have free will, free will in the sense of having an open alternative, open feature, it means that determinism is false. Right. Well, if you go to the next slide, yeah, we'll see that there's a further move that the libertarian makes. So what I was pointing out was just that the libertarian endorses premise one and it follows, you know, pretty obviously from from his definition of free will. But the libertarian, I think, then goes a bit further because he assumes two, right? You don't have to assume two. You could, I mean, you could reason, you could reason determinism is true, so we don't have free will. But that's not how he reasoned. He says, so we have free will. So the libertarian thinks that we are free. And so he concludes that the universe is indeterministic. So it's actually giving us this philosophical proof of the truth of indeterminism, which is an interesting addition to make. So which of these two views is true? Well, OK, so having sort of set out what the views kind of roughly are in a very sketchy way, we have to see whether either of them is acceptable. And unfortunately, I think that the answer is no. So this isn't going to be a very positive kind of talk. So the trouble with with compatibilism. Well, the trouble with it is it's OK if all you're doing is focusing on a particular action and the beliefs and desires that lead to it. And that's all that you're told, then it sounds fair enough. Right. So so take the example I use in my book. So Smith, you know, wants to rob the bank. So. So he does so and he escapes with the loot. So so that this would be a paradigm case of free action for the for the compatibilist. Right. So because it was simply Smith's belief and desire that led him to rob the bank.  He wasn't forced or manipulated. His action was simply the result of his own beliefs and desires. So this ought to be a paradigm example of a free action for the for the compatibilists. But the trouble is once you sort of, you know, pan out a bit and you think, well, just a minute, but his beliefs and desires. It doesn't really matter whether that whether you think of them as physical and physical, but his beliefs and desires are themselves events in the world. And they themselves have causes and indeed they were determined by prior causes and those causes were in turn determined by prior causes and so on and so on, stretching right back to events before Smith was even born. Well, once once you've panned out like that, then it seems to me that it's very hard to think of Smith as a free agent. Right. In fact, these beliefs and desires now seem to be just like events that occur in him over which he has no more control than he does over the motion of the planets. So I mean, the problem is that our assumption that Smith was free rested on the idea that he really did own his own beliefs and desires. But once you see that his beliefs and desires are just the consequences of events that happened way before he was born, then that intuition of ownership seems to disappear. And obviously what holds for Smith in this example would hold for all of us. So so that seems to me the the intuitive problem with with the compatibilist definition of free will. But it's actually not compatible with determinism. The one once you once you take a bigger picture of what's going on, then then the idea that the agent is free doesn't really seem very plausible. So so one person who's run with this and made it a bit more precise is Peter van Nwagen, who has this thing called the consequence argument, which is a kind of a sharpening of the kind of thing I was I was saying here. So I think we have a slide of this. So this is a kind of more formal way of putting what I was kind of getting at. So if determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the loss of nature and events in the remote past. So so that was what I meant by that the ultimate causes of Smith's belief and desires will be things before he was born. But it's not up to us what went on before we were born. And neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things are not up to us. So this is a slightly more formal way of putting the same the same point or the same worry. And van Nwagen does indeed think that this is a good argument and it shows that that compatibilism is not is unacceptable. I mean, there was a famous reply to it by David Lewis in a paper called Can We Break the Laws? That it would be too difficult to go into here. I mean, Lewis thinks that it's a kind of equivocation and it's actually not. It's not a good argument. But to my to my sort of simple mind, it does seem to be a pretty a pretty compelling objection to compatibilism. OK, so how about libertarianism? Well, you won't be surprised to hear it doesn't get any better. No, no. Well, it seems to me. Look, I mean, people have written, you know, books and PhD feasts on this. And so what I'm doing is very is very superficial. But I mean, there are two obvious objections, I think, to to the libertarian view. So so one one it goes back to the point you were making about about it's an empirical matter where the determinism is true. So the libertarian's conclusion that our universe is is indeterministic is really sort of hostage to fortune. I mean, I mean, it may be that today, scientists think that indeterminism is true, but it may be that scientists in the future think that determinism is the determinism is true. So so if that's how it turns out, then then the libertarian would have to just give up on the idea of free will. So so his whole view is kind of postage to how the science turns out in a way that you don't really want a philosophical view to be. I mean, you might also think it's a bit odd, just as an aside, when I when I went through the earlier argument you could have a philosophical argument for indeterminism. That itself seems a bit odd if we agreed that it's an empirical question, you know, one for science to tell us whether determinism is true or not. They're really the philosophers, no business giving us an a priori argument that that indeterminism is true. But the second and perhaps perhaps that the really the objection that everyone focuses on is that indeterminism and, of course, it's not enough just that there be indeterminism somewhere in the universe. But that wouldn't give us free will. I mean, indeterminism has to be something in our brain or a central nervous system or something to do with us. But the general worry is that indeterminism doesn't seem to give us a kind of hospitable environment for free will. I mean, if you imagine.  And so you weigh all the pros and the cons and eventually you say, OK, I think A is the best thing to do, right thing to do. And then you do A. So we take that to be a paradigm of a kind of free, rational decision, free, rational action. And I mean, it would be really odd to think that there was some indeterministic element in that that your decision depended on some indeterministic brain event. I mean, that would be really weird.  Right. So the real worry, I mean, so P.F. Strossen, who, you know, my old supervisor, he actually in a famous paper of freedom or resentment, I think, used the phrase panicky metaphysics to describe the metaphysics of libertarianism. I think this is what he was he was getting at. This is a, you know, you don't want to end up here thinking that your freedom resides in some indeterministic event in your brain. This is not where we want to be. And it doesn't seem to give you free will anyway. In fact, if anything, it seems to undermine your free will. So. So we're so things are not looking too good, right? Even though the faithless argument doesn't work, it does look as if we have another kind of overarching argument. That basically both compatibilism and libertarianism don't work. So it seems that, so in other words, it seems that free will is incompatible with determinism and free will is incompatible with indeterminism. And that would follow that therefore necessarily no one is free necessarily. You know, free will is impossible. Would seem to be the conclusion if you agree with with what I've been saying so far. Yeah, but if that's the case, then how about moral responsibility and legal accountability? How would you? Yeah, well. Well, OK, I mean, one reason why people people focus on this issue is a lot of people it's not so much because of the the metaphysical question of are we free, but because it's linked to the question of whether or not we are morally responsible because it's normally assumed that someone can be more responsible only if they are free. So so the question here is, I mean, suppose we agreed with all this and we agreed that free will is impossible. And how do we how do we sort of get by? I mean, we have all these practices that depend on the assumption that we are free, that other people are free, that we are responsible. Other people are responsible. How will those how are those going to to survive? And yeah, so it seems to me that that I mean, not for the first time in philosophy, you know, we're caught in a kind of paradox that that sort of reason forces us to deny the possibility of human freedom. And yet, you know, most of our human practices rest on the assumption that we are free and responsible. So obviously, this is not comfortable. A comfortable position. I mean, it's worth mentioning what I mean. So the son of Peter Strossen, Galen Strossen. Who actually was one of the examiners on my D Phil. So his father was a supervisor and his son was the examiner. So I got I got that stitched up quite nicely. I mean, he's got this view. I mean, he's the most extreme advocate of the view that I mean, his view would dovetail with what I've been saying. But but he thinks, of course, that the whole obsession with determinism and indeterminism is all beside the point, right, because I won't go into this too much here. But basically, he thinks that the problem is with the notion of free will itself, right? He thinks that the notion of free will is just itself incoherent, right, because he thinks that that free will requires a kind of self determination, which is actually logically unsatisfiable in the way that self creation is logically unsatisfiable, right? It doesn't make any sense to create yourself because to create yourself, you'd have to be there first to do to do any creating.  Well, maybe God has always existed. So he didn't have to come into existence. Right. So so he's got this very radical view.  And that's that's that's a problem. But of course, but one thing that's worth I think worth mentioning is that in a way, this is a kind of philosophical problem itself, which is I mean, if you really did become convinced that we didn't have free will, then then we ought to give up lots of other attitudes to ourself and other people. But that seems that seems practically impossible, right? We can't.  I mean, we can't really give up this this idea of free will or the assumption that other people are are responsible. I mean, so this is one of the lines in Sir Peter Strossen's famous paper, Freedom and Resentment. I mean, he called these things that the reactive attitudes, which are basically a kind of typical human attitudes of praise and blame, resentment, etc. that you have to yourself and to other people. And part of his idea is that these are so deeply ingrained in our nature that that we couldn't possibly give them up. And he thinks that the truth of determinism or indeterminism is completely irrelevant. They can never force us to give up these reactive attitudes. Of course, you might think that that's a bit dogmatic. That's another that's another question. But it is interesting that that even if we came to believe that we don't have free will, it does seem that we would never actually, I mean, if someone stole your car, you know, you would still be annoyed with them. I mean, it's very hard to give up these attitudes, even if even if you came to believe sincerely that no one has free will. But that may be true elsewhere in philosophy. You know, so perhaps our reason for accepting that there is free will is more of a practical reason or a pragmatic reason. Yes, but but I still think that the trouble with that with the the Serpito-Straussian response is, I mean, OK, it may be true that we can't we cannot but have these reactive attitudes. But the fact that we can't but think a certain way doesn't itself show that it's right to think that way. The question of its justification. No, there's a big debate about that and whether whether that's actually a good objection. But, you know, that seems a natural thing to say. I mean, just I mean, there may be lots of attitudes that that evolution has given to us that we that we couldn't give up. But that doesn't make mean that they're true. It just means that we can't give them up. So. OK, so what's your view, your personal view on the matter, on the nature of free will? Well, I suppose I suppose I agree partly with with with Vanden Wagen. So he's someone, I think, who thinks that the arguments I've run through against compatibilism and against libertarianism are perfectly good objections. So he thinks that, yes, there are these good arguments to show that we don't have free will. But on the other hand, he seems low to give up the belief that we have free will. So he thinks that somehow or other we do have free will, but he doesn't quite know how. No, I'm not sure if I'm that optimistic. But certainly, I do think that these these objections to to compatibilism and libertarianism are really quite strong objections. So so as a theoretical notion, free will does seem to be does seem to be under under serious threat. OK, so on a more personal note, you have been a philosopher for the longest time. You have seen the career of an academic philosopher. So what's your tip for those who want to get into academic philosophy? Well, yes. Well, generally speaking, I wouldn't I wouldn't recommend it. No, I mean, I think I think nowadays, if you can become an accountant or or a lawyer or a merchant bank or something and become financially independent at an early age, then that's probably what you should do.  I mean, there's the dominance of all this political correctness everywhere. There isn't really anything in the way of kind of free speech. I mean, any philosopher who's remotely conservative will either never be invited onto a campus or if they do get onto a campus that they'll be shouted down by radical social justice warriors. So so yeah, there's a lot going on here that seems to me to be to be to be bad. And it doesn't look like it's going to get better any time in the near in the near future. So so there's that. I mean, as for philosophy itself, well, it does seem to me, I mean, this is just a personal view that that philosophy is in a particularly kind of fallow period at the moment. I mean, if you look at the kind of things that appear in the latest mind or analysis, I mean, they're often very specialized, sometimes very formal. And there's this whole rise of empirical or experimental philosophy, which I just don't get at all. So I mean, I know I've come to the conclusion that the kind of the high point of philosophy was really last last century. I mean, then philosophy was, I think, a genuinely humane discipline. People like Russell, Ayer, Hampshire, Williams, Quinton, these kind of people. And you know, if I try and think of when the last great book of philosophy was, I would say it was it was Sol Kripke's Naming and Necessity, which was a great book. But I mean, that came out in 1980. I mean, that's 40 years ago. And there's really been there's been nothing like that since then. So. Yes, so I mean, I'm sure it will get better. But I think at the moment it's it's a it's a bit of a nadir, as opposed to a zenith. OK, so you're pessimistic concerning academic career and philosophy? Yes. So Stolger was a reasonable optimist. I'm a reasonable or maybe unreasonable pessimist. OK, so on that note, thanks again, Professor Garrett, for sharing your time with us. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. OK, so join me again for another episode of Philosophy and What Matters, where we talk about things that matter from a philosophical point of view. Cheers. Bye. Good.