/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13209588]

Is free will impossible within the restrictive bounds of materialism? I have been pondering this question extensively, and I think the texts of Locke and Descartes argue the impracticality of free will. If everything is physical, then everything becomes predetermined. How can people possibly believe in free will with this in mind? Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.13209672]

>>13209588
Because fuck you that's why

[Anonymous No.13209687]

>>13209588
Why would you assume that plain matter cannot have properties that we don't know yet? You could still say everything is physical, while refuting Descartes and Locke's definition of physical matter.

[Anonymous No.13209727]

>>13209588
To have free will is practically the ability to do whatever it is you believe is best for you. If I know that I should spend 8 hours a day studying, exercising, and not wasting time on /lit/, then not only should I be able to desire that course of action above all else, but it shall inevitable happen. The fact that procrastination, addiction, foreseeable regret, etc. all exist just proves that we don’t always have free will. It’s often said that free will explains why people make bad decisions, sin, and bring evil into the world. But this is the exact opposite of the real explanation, because all these things exist because of the lack of free will. If two beings, both having free will and the same knowledge of what will benefit them, then they will always make the same decision in any given conditions. The lack of free will explains the diversity of decisions in this world.

[Anonymous No.13209811]

>>13209687
It is unlikely that we will ever discover any "spiritual" properties in anything. Are you saying you believe that some objects, though physical, have some sort of astral or spiritual manifestation? Or are you simply rejecting the theory of physicalism? What point are you trying to convey?
>>13209727
> To have free will is practically the ability to do whatever it is you believe is best for you.
Consider an advanced computer program, were I to make one, one that exactly emulates a human brain, simulating how each and every neuron and input/output mechanism of the brain and body works and feels from inside a powerful computer. It acts in precisely the same way that a human would. It would have human feelings, thoughts, desires, hopes and dreams just like any of us do. Would this program have free will, or would it just be a carefully designed system of electrons traveling about in a circuit board, ones and zeroes?
>If I know that I should spend 8 hours a day studying, exercising, and not wasting time on /lit/, then not only should I be able to desire that course of action above all else, but it shall inevitable happen.
Yes, but consciously making a decision does not equate to free will, to raw liberty. If I make a conscious decision to say, go for a run, this is merely an extension of the forces around me, and in at its core, the decision was in no way under my control. Are we as humans any different than my analogy above? Forces completely out of our control have constructed us in one way or another. If you take a materialistic standpoint, then humans are nothing more than bio-mechanical machines, whose sole function is to survive. If I decided to go for a run, I would be functioning precisely the same way as a computer; input, processing, output. In fact, I have come to realize that given enough knowledge towards a person, I can predict their actions with nearly 100% accurate, and I see this every single day. How can free will possibly be real taking these things into account? It must be an illusion.
>It’s often said that free will explains why people make bad decisions, sin, and bring evil into the world. But this is the exact opposite of the real explanation, because all these things exist because of the lack of free will.
I agree with this. Evil does not stem from free will. It stems from a life of drudgery and absurdity.

Alternatively, what if each of our bodies and minds were a perfect reflection of the soul inhabiting it? Our body would act exactly how we want it to, not because we control it, but because it is based on who we are on a fundamental level. We would not have true control of our body, yet our free will would remain intact. Our mind and body would not be cruelly warped by chance, but instead external forces would make us into a replica of our true selves. This world could be both internally consistent in its physical rules, and simultaneously not interfere in its inhabitant’s free will.

[Anonymous No.13209831]

Also, I have seen several theories that some people are just robots without a soul or real self-awareness. Maybe they possess a soul but have chosen to give up on self-awareness and operate purely based on a mix of what others, their society, and their raw instincts tell them to. Temporarily pushing back self-awareness and the burdens that come with it, with my own actions seems at least partially possible. The most obvious method is simply going to sleep, but it seems like consuming media or doing very strenuous tasks can do something similar for a time. You get pushed into your body and must live in the moment, acting only on the input that you receive from your environment. No real thoughts are necessary or even possible; you simply do the calculations necessary to process the information or do the thing you are doing. Perhaps simply putting on the mask of a predefined role in ordinary life is how many people do it. It really is a tough question to answer.

Picture is by Descartes, arguing physicalism in our world.

[Anonymous No.13209843]

>>13209588
It does not follow that if all if physical, then all is predetermined. Free will a human created concept, it isn't something you either have or don't have. It is something that might occor when intelligent beings direct their own actions and thoughts and movements. The more a being is able to control it's actions and thoughts, the more free will it has.

[Anonymous No.13209880]

>>13209843
>Free will a human created concept, it isn't something you either have or don't have. It is something that might occur when intelligent beings direct their own actions and thoughts and movements.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps humanity serves only as a strange sort of cinema for some powerful and bored group of free willed souls. Bored with complete free will and omnipotence? All I have to do is temporarily wipe my memory to experience a life of mortality, an authentic meaningless experience of labor. It’s a ridiculous theory, but it’s fun to think about.

[Anonymous No.13209890]

>>13209811
Until you successfully make a human artificially, I don’t care for your analogy
>Yes, but consciously making a decision does not equate to free will, to raw liberty. If I make a conscious decision to say, go for a run, this is merely an extension of the forces around me, and in at its core, the decision was in no way under my control. Are we as humans any different than my analogy above? Forces completely out of our control have constructed us in one way or another
We will always have some forces influencing us. But if we were to become maximally free from all these influences, then there would be no will. A free being would be the same as a non-being, never acting, never thinking, never affected by the world surrounding it. We must accept that the world plays a crucial role in determining what it is we desire, but that’s not the issue, because who complains about having something to desire? The problem comes when we can rationally deduce what choices we should make in order to fulfill our desires and benefit ourselves the most. If two humans were exactly alike, but one had a stronger will and a stronger connection between his mind and his desires, allowing him to freely choose to do what he knows will give him maximum benefit, then would it be inaccurate to say that this person is more free than the other?

In some cases, we act exactly as a person with free will would act. Therefore, in some cases, we might as well have free will.

[Anonymous No.13209958]

>>13209588

There is zero sum between freedom of will and freedom of action. In fact, that is precisely why the former is self-evident. This argument would be almost unassailable if they were one and the same. Had my will been "free" in implicitly being made manifest, then I would have to concede that it would be Epistemologically indistinguishable from a will totally subordinate to an autonomous Phenomenal. But I and the Phenomenal can disagree and, indeed, though it quantitatively binds my action, it cannot qualitatively bind my will.

[Anonymous No.13209959]

Even if I tackled this from a scientific standpoint, I could still pick out several things in this universe that are intangible, which is what really brings me into a state of despair. For example, empty space, light, and even variants of energy that lack any matter whatsoever. I know absolutely nothing regarding physics, so I don’t think I can’t explain it further. However, I am convinced that there MUST be something in this universe that extends beyond the physical realm. As alluring as it is to believe however, we as a species are no closer to proving a metaphysical realm than disproving it, and I don’t believe we will ever come close. I have also found that this question is as old as time itself, we have been disproving miracles since we first gained self-awareness, the most prevalent example being the Bible. But then how can we disprove something that is intangible? Does this being it is impossible to discern is a god (not God) is real? So far, I have not even left our universe. What if I set my sights further? Why should I limit the search for meaning to just our universe? I could really argue about this for hours, but I would really just be guessing, as there isn’t a single person in this world with concrete knowledge about what’s “out there”.

[Anonymous No.13209965]

>>13209811
>What point are you trying to convey?
Actually I was thinking of Lucretius who says that you don't have to posit anything else than plain matter in order to explain living matter. However I don't know if Epicurus or Lucretius would be called 'physicalists'. (because clinamen)
More generally, something like energy had been regarded as different from plain matter for a long time.
What I mean is that all along history, scientists themselves keep adding properties to matter, disproving Descartes' definition of matter as simply extension.
Of course it's not a clear step towards adding 'free will' as a property of physical matter. I'd still stick to Epicurus who admits that some kind of spontaneous movement of physical matter cannot be explained since it is required itself as an explanation.

[Anonymous No.13210010]

>>13209890

>Until you successfully make a human artificially, I don’t care for your analogy
Explain to me what the difference would be if a human was grown in a test tube or was born through natural causes.
>If two humans were exactly alike, but one had a stronger will and a stronger connection between his mind and his desires, allowing him to freely choose to do what he knows will give him maximum benefit, then would it be inaccurate to say that this person is more free than the other?
You seem to have forgotten my argument that our world is strictly physical, but I will indulge you regardless. Yes, it would be an inaccurate assessment of the person. As I have said, our choices are determined by various factors which are almost always external. Our influences, such as parents, teachers, friends, and school, and also situational factors such as social status and luck, all lead us to forming a bias towards any given decision at any point in life. Say one of these humans graduated from college and the other didn’t. If the universe replayed for them over and over again, and assuming their initial circumstances have changed minimally, would they make different decisions? No, they wouldn’t. They would always make the same choice, no matter what.

[Anonymous No.13210048]

>>13209958
>There is zero sum between freedom of will and freedom of action. In fact, that is precisely why the former is self-evident. This argument would be almost unassailable if they were one and the same.
I can see your point of view, but there are millions of exceptions to this every day. There is definitely a correlation between freedom of will and freedom of action. Let’s use the old example of the woman and the dog. There is a woman who knows that she needs to take her dog out, but just got home from a long day of working and would prefer to stay inside. The woman is aware that she MUST take her dog outside, but would rather not. She decides that is best for her and the dog to take him outside. Concerning the correlation between freedom of will and freedom of action, if the woman does not have free will, then she lacks freedom of action. If you were held at gunpoint, and told to kill a person, then you had neither free will nor freedom of action in that specific situation. This is obviously an exaggerated scenario, but the same can be said for getting out of bed in the morning. You really don’t want to, but if you want to survive then you really don’t have any choice.

[Anonymous No.13210060]

>>13210010
According to you, then, free will is either impossible or beyond our understanding. But the free will you’re describing is really a contradiction, because, as I said, if you have a will at all, then your freedom is already limited. In this world that we can understand, free will is the ability to freely will whatever benefits you the most and act out that desire. If someone were able to do this every time, would he complain about his actions being predetermined, since ultimately he is always benefiting himself? After all, if someone had free will, would he not want to use it in order to benefit himself the most? Isn’t that why people are so averse to the idea that we don’t have free will? Because it suggests we don’t always have the capability of improving ourselves the most? If I worked my butt off and landed a fantastic job, got married, had great children, do you think I would care if you told me all those actions were predetermined?

It seems we don’t all always have free will, but I argue that if you ever do what benefits you the most, then you practically have free will, and there’s no reason to complain.

[Anonymous No.13210081]

Free will exists beyond the material, numbnuts

[Anonymous No.13210085]

>>13209588
>Is free will impossible within the restrictive bounds of materialism?
Here's my definitions:
>Free will: the ability, right up to the moment of decision, to have done otherwise than I actually did.
>Materialism: everything is matter or is reducible to matter.
These don't look obviously contradictory. I reckon free will is consistent with a purely material universe so long as you're prepared to believe it's chunks of matter that are (somehow) freely doing the willing.

>If everything is physical, then everything becomes predetermined.
Why believe this? Isn't randomness possible in a purely physical universe? And if randomness is possible, why believe everything's determined?

>How can people possibly believe in free will with this in mind? Thoughts?
If it's true the universe is purely physical (or material or whatever) then we need to talk about what you mean by 'believe', 'mind' and 'thoughts' before we get to free will.

That's a nice picture of Sgt Hathaway from Lewis.

[Anonymous No.13210101]

>>13210085
>Free will: the ability, right up to the moment of decision, to have done otherwise than I actually did
I see no reason why anyone would do otherwise than they do unless randomness is involved. Run a simulation 1,000 times, and it won’t matter if a person makes the same decision every time. Why would the person with free will do anything different?

[Anonymous No.13210122]

>Article 1: Is free will possible within a materalist framework?
It appears as if free will is impossible within a materalist framework.
>Argument 1: Every material substance is bound by the laws of nature. Becuase the laws of nature determines the events that happens, and no event can go against them, it seeme as if free will doesn't exist becuase our actions are decided by the laws of nature.
>Argument 2: Every material object has an essence that determines its properties, and the propeties causes the abilities in an object, suppose than that choice is an ability, then the ability to choose must be determined by the essence of man.
>Argument 3: Psychology discovers the laws of human behavior. Becuase human behavior can be predicted according to psychology, then it ses as if free will doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.13210153]

>>13210101
That's interesting anon.

I reckon most of the time you're right, because most of the time our decisions aren't very important or interesting. But there are some decisions - whether to tell the truth, whether to stick the knife in - where there's a real, important choice. I think at least some of these are free in the sense that I could've (and maybe I should've) done differently, and if you ran a simulation, maybe I would do.

[Anonymous No.13210178]

>>13209588
Free will vs determinism is a meme regardless of idealism or materialism. Time is an illusion, and everything that will happen has already happened, and all that happened has yet to happen. It only appears linear (time) but in fact time does not exist. The sum of all actions has already existed and yet is perpetually un-accutualized.

[Anonymous No.13210189]

>>13209965
>I was thinking of Lucretius who says that you don't have to posit anything else than plain matter in order to explain living matter. However I don't know if Epicurus or Lucretius would be called 'physicalists'.
I am not familiar with either of their works, so I think lack the basis to form a real opinion regarding their validity. Thank you for introducing them to me though, I will have to research their philosophy.

>What I mean is that all along history, scientists themselves keep adding properties to matter, disproving Descartes' definition of matter as simply extension.
It doesn’t matter what we label things, that won’t offset the fact that our universe is physical.

>>13210081
Solid observation, I'm stumped.

[Anonymous No.13210207]

>>13210153
If you could have done otherwise, then that implies that in some moments, you have several choices in front of you. Then the question is, why did you do this instead of that? If we go back to the simulation, if at any point we observe that a person makes a different decision, then I cannot make sense of this phenomenon unless we ascribe probabilities to each choice being made. But then it only seems as if randomness is deciding your fate. At any moment, a dice roll determines what action you take. To do otherwise than what you have done...who would call such a thing an effect of freedom?

All of this stems from the human’s ability to reflect on his desires. I want to eat chicken, but I also want the cheeseburger. In the end, there is only one choice that is most appealing, and your choice was determined from the beginning. You mistakenly believe that you could have chosen otherwise when there is no reason why you would.

[Anonymous No.13210223]

>>13210060
According to you, then, free will is either impossible or beyond our understanding
>Yes, it is an incredibly problematic question. There are many fallacious arguments in both sides, and some of our greatest minds have tackled this question and failed to give a solid answer.

After all, if someone had free will, would he not want to use it in order to benefit himself the most? Isn’t that why people are so averse to the idea that we don’t have free will? Because it suggests we don’t always have the capability of improving ourselves the most?
>Not necessarily. The fact that many do not subscribe to the idea of free will does not mean they are powerless in steering themselves towards a brighter future.

>If I worked my butt off and landed a fantastic job, got married, had great children, do you think I would care if you told me all those actions were predetermined?
You could argue that it was predetermined because of your mindset. Somebody who has the drive to work and achieve stability is not born that way. Like I said, people are products of their environment. A murderer isn’t born wanting carnage and slaughter. He does not choose to feel that way. It is also why many pedophiliacs are ashamed of their urges. Something MUST make you the way you are. The thin line between a murder, and a hardworking family man is their upbringing and their experiences in life. They are not consiouscly choosing to commit x or y, they have a “moral” obligation to do these things because of their life experiences.

>It seems we don’t all always have free will, but I argue that if you ever do what benefits you the most, then you practically have free will, and there’s no reason to complain.
^Above. ALL of our choices are predetermined by our life experiences. Take the example of the college student I used above. Would it be inaccurate to assume this? Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.13210228]

>>13210223
>According to you, then, free will is either impossible or beyond our understanding
Yes, it is an incredibly problematic question. There are many fallacious arguments in both sides, and some of our greatest minds have tackled this question and failed to give a solid answer.

>After all, if someone had free will, would he not want to use it in order to benefit himself the most? Isn’t that why people are so averse to the idea that we don’t have free will? Because it suggests we don’t always have the capability of improving ourselves the most?
Not necessarily. The fact that many do not subscribe to the idea of free will does not mean they are powerless in steering themselves towards a brighter future.
*fixed, I'm a retard.

[Anonymous No.13210236]

>>13210223
Define free will and tell me why people should want to have it.

[Anonymous No.13210237]

>>13209843
>Free will a human created concept, it isn't something you either have or don't have.
This. "Free will" is a particular way of thinking about yourself and the world. This way of thinking, by the way, is incompatible with physicalist thinking of oneself: physics knows only two ways of connecting things temporarily, that is, deterministic and stochastic (and any combination of the two). Neither look particularly free to me.
>>13209588
What really introduces the concept of the free will is Christianity. Kierkegaard writes quite extensively about this, especially in "The Concept of Anxiety". Free will can only exist against a Task, a Law, which it has to abide by, but can choose not to. That's precisely the Christian concept of Sin. Schematically speaking, you have the higher ideal, but you are imperfect so you are free not to follow it, yet you absolutely must follow it. That is free will, and there's no other way to philosophically understand free will in a consistent manner.

[Anonymous No.13210247]

>>13210207
>But then it only seems as if randomness is deciding your fate
I agree that 'random' choices aren't free. But why not 'free will' instead of randomness? Aren't you begging the question by deciding in advance that things are either determined or random, with no other option?

>All of this stems from the human’s ability to reflect on his desires. I want to eat chicken, but I also want the cheeseburger. In the end, there is only one choice that is most appealing, and your choice was determined from the beginning.
Again, aren't you begging the question? It's true that I make a choice in the end, but how does it follow that that choice was determined?

[Anonymous No.13210252]

>>13210122
Based and Thomaspilled

[Anonymous No.13210267]

>>13210247
If you aren’t determined, then you’re uncaused. If you’re uncaused, then there is no will. If your will is not determined, then where did it come from?

[Anonymous No.13210277]

>>13210178
Based Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.13210278]

>>13210237
>but you are imperfect so you are not always free to follow it
FTFY

[Anonymous No.13210279]

>>13210236

>Define free will and tell me why people should want to have it.
Free will was conceived from the cowardice of those unable to face the inherent futility of life. People want to have free will for similar reasons in why people believe in God. There is a certain comfort in believing that you know the purpose of life, some kind of meaning to fill and empty void. But once you realize that there is no free will, that life is bundle of drudgery and labor, then any goal you set for yourself becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.13210284]

>>13210279
Define free will

[Anonymous No.13210288]

>>13209588

It depends on your definition of free will. Engels gave a pretty good answer to this problem of "soft determinism" found within dialectical materialism in the Anti-Dühring.

[Anonymous No.13210294]

>>13210267
I'm going to fall back on agent-causation and say that my decisions cause my actions, and my decisions are caused by... me.

[Anonymous No.13210299]

>>13210278
That's a very subtle point actually. Freedom is the state of following the Good despite your ability to not follow it, and it's also your imperfection that enables you to not follow it (but at the same time lets you follow it, because an existence that cannot not follow Good is not free but a mere automaton. That is why the concept of the Original Sin is essential, by the way.

[Anonymous No.13210302]

>>13210277
>mfw I've never read Schoppy
Should I? Does he really say stuff like that? I'm always interested in someone who formalizes my thoughts

[Anonymous No.13210323]

>>13209811

Not the same anon you were replying to, but have you considered dyalectics giving an accurate answer? The laws of quantitative changes which eventually spontaneously bring qualitative leaps can be found endlessly in nature. Mechanical physics are quantum physics on a larger scale, for everything that exists is made up of the same quantum subatomic particles, however, the properties we observe in both "levels" are radically different, as well as their interactions and "laws". Same thing could be aaid about inorganic chemistry and physics; organic and inorganic chemistry; biology and organic chemistry; taxonomy and biology; etology and taxonomy...

Human reason is an unique object within the universe. Almost a miracle. It would be unwise to think it obeys the same laws applied to objects or the universe in generalz even though it has a biological, chemical, physical base; it has trascended said barriers, an "Aufhebung".

tl;dr: Dyalectics

[Anonymous No.13210336]

>>13210294
Explain why agents cause different decisions
>>13210299
>despite your ability to not follow it
What is ability? If I say, I am able to tie my shoe in the next 5 seconds, then a big dog runs over me, then I was I ever able to tie my shoe? What are you able to do, other than that which you actually do?
>because an existence that cannot not follow Good is not free but a mere automaton.
You can be an automaton even if you follow good and don’t follow it.

Was Jesus a mere automaton?

[Anonymous No.13210361]

>>13210336
Good question. I can't. I can only say that some choose one thing, and some choose another.

[Anonymous No.13210368]

>>13210279
Free will is the ability to make decisions for yourself, without external forces influencing you or creating bias. This is impossible with both our materialistic world and our moral obligation to society.

[Anonymous No.13210407]

>>13210284
read>>13210368
messed up with the reply.

[Anonymous No.13210437]

>>13210368
What is the difference between magically creating your own will without influence and being subservient to the will the world has given you? In the end, you’re still following a desire that you believe will benefit you. Why should anyone desire this free will you speak of?

[Anonymous No.13210474]

>>13210302
If you're into aesthetic transcendentalism, sure

[Anonymous No.13210498]

>>13210437
Well I guess I'm too stupid to argue against that. Well said, I stand defeated.

[Anonymous No.13210523]

>>13210302
You should probably read some Borges, too. He always talks about the negation of time

[Anonymous No.13210524]

>>13209588
You should probably read some more contemporary material on the topic, i.e. anything from the past century. Look up "compatibilism".

[Anonymous No.13210624]

>Someone say time is unreal?

[Anonymous No.13210651]

materialism is a meme and you should just get to the 21st century and accept based process philosophy

[Anonymous No.13210728]

>>13210498
We’re dealing with made-up concepts with no real grounding, so it’s no wonder that there is confusion. The words “morality” and “free will” shouldn’t even exist. The most moral action is just that action which benefits you the most. To have free will is no different than being able to benefit yourself. What does it mean to be “moral”? To act in such a way that you expect to be rewarded, and free from punishment. What does it mean not to interfere with someone’s “free will” ? Not to interfere with his ability to benefit himself. A being with maximum free will is simply that being which is maximally benefited, either by its capability to achieve all its desires or its lack of any desires at all due to its state of perfection. So we can see the spectrum of “free will” easily: there are those who cannot satisfy their desires and those who can, and all those in between. The “free will” of individuals can be improved if only we would improve society.

[Anonymous No.13210742]

>>13209588
What if I said that one's entire life had been decided by fate? That every single one of your actions, from the minute to the monumental, stemmed not from your own choices, but had already been decided upon? That life being a journey of limitless possibilities was but an illusion, and no matter how fiercely man struggled, he stood at the mercy of a long-established path? The wealthy shall know their riches. The needy shall starve on the streets. The wicked shall be wicked, the righteous just. The beautiful, the hideous, the strong, the frail, the fortunate, the miserable... and finally, the victors and the defeated. What if I said that all such things had been carved into stone eons ago, allowing for no divergence? If so, sinners have nothing to answer for, nor do saints have any true virtue to their name. What if I said that not a single action is carried out of one's own volition, but had been decided long ago? That we are merely adrift in the current of time? Tell me, would you feel content with such a world? A world in which power is merely given, not earned - would you accept knees bent to a throne build upon such falsities? A universe where the sinless have-nots are oppressed and downtrodden - would you allow such a world to exist?
Never, I say. Never.

[Anonymous No.13210761]

>>13210336
>What are you able to do, other than that which you actually do?
Christianity goes around this problem quite elegantly. It gives you a task, that is, Good. And it gives you the ultimate punishment (the eternal suffering) for failing to fulfil the task. Then it also postulates that you are a sinner (everyone is a sinner), so that the task is non-trivial, meaning you don't do Good automatically. As a sinner, and because of the Original Sin, you are postulated to be able to do Evil. But what if you think you are unable, rather than unwilling, to do Good? Christianity gives no fucks. It says you are able, and thinking you are unable is, in fact, a transgression against the task itself. Welcome to Hell. Thus Christianity teaches you that you are free to save yourself (or not to save yourself)

[Anonymous No.13210771]

>>13209588
What's even the point of trying to explain something as basic as determinism... if you don't come to that logical conclusion you just lack logic and will never realize anything.

[Anonymous No.13210816]

>>13210728
I hate to jump in and disagree with some random person in the thread but you're too stirnerpilled for your own good.

>The most moral action is just that action which benefits you the most.
No
>But aren't you moral just because you've been promised Heaven?
This is the problem with every branch of Christianity that isn't orthodox.

[Anonymous No.13210833]

>>13210816
>No
I disagree

[Anonymous No.13210837]

>>13209672
Crude, but nicely put Anon.

[Anonymous No.13210884]

>>13210728
>The words “morality” and “free will” shouldn’t even exist.
>We shouldn't take claims with "shouldn't" in them seriously
Okay.

[Anonymous No.13210895]

>>13210651
Give me at least one (1) reason why I should care about process?

[Anonymous No.13210923]

>>13210884
The word “should” is simple enough. No reason to use “morality.” It just leads to confusion and people forget why they should or should not do something.

[Anonymous No.13210937]

>>13210895
>Accept your footnote status and move on

[Anonymous No.13210942]

>>13210923
Stop spending your time on 4channel and start reading. You might actually learn something

[Anonymous No.13210981]

>>13210923
>We shouldn't use the word "morality" when talking about what people should or shouldn't do
>People are dumb
Yep.

[Anonymous No.13211001]

>>13210942
Would that be the moral thing to do?

[Anonymous No.13211042]

This a conceptual confusion thread now

[Anonymous No.13211053]

>>13209727
>because I’m lazy I have no free will
lmao

[Anonymous No.13211056]

>>13209588
>Is free will impossible within the restrictive bounds of materialism?
>the restrictive bounds of materialism?
I suppose that's the living entity of materialism, but the dictionary definition doesn't limit reality, it simply tells us a direction we should go for explanations (divide things into parts).

[Anonymous No.13211060]

>>13210048
Flawed argument. You can choose to die, people have

[Anonymous No.13211066]

>>13211001
It might help with your retardation, so yeah

[Anonymous No.13211071]

>>13210122
>Becuase the laws of nature determines the events that happens, and no event can go against them
There's order and there's chaos, these are physical. Entropy and full mathematical randomness are things. Maybe freedom particles exist, I dunno.

[Anonymous No.13211093]

Nothing to do with free will, but Wittgenstein's sister was hot.

[Anonymous No.13211194]

I don't see how it would be possible even without materialism/causality.
How would one make rational decisions without a causal mechanism behind them? Wouldn't it just be randomness at that point?

[Anonymous No.13211264]

>>13210942
>>13210981
There is a problem when people say “X is not the moral thing to do” as if that holds as an argument in itself. If they were forced to say “we should not do x” then we would expect a reason.

[Anonymous No.13211356]

>>13210833
>I disagree
I refuse to accept your disagreement

[Anonymous No.13211403]

>>13209588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs4C91-_eqQ

[Anonymous No.13211429]

>>13211264
>moral has no value and can't be used to justify (non-)actions
Ok retard

[Anonymous No.13211476]

>>13209811
> thinks free will is choosing what's best for us
> thinks the heart, spirit and soul work in conformity
> thinking man can and will be summarised in an a4 peice of paper one day
> thinks I am the product of forces around me and I won't piss into those forces even if it sprays back onto my face just to spite you for trying to produce something of me by force
> thinks evil is the product of drudgery and absurdity, that if only I saw things from his high and lofty perspective, I would stop masturbating to terrible things, stop stealing people's Amazon parcels, stop watching my neighbour get dressed, stop shit posting
> doesn't realise that free will is our ability to willfully turn from light to darkness, and that the light has cone into this world, and anon hasn't reprehended it
Utter babe tier post

[Anonymous No.13211483]

>>13211356
this is outrageous!

[Anonymous No.13211519]

will and free are oxymorons.

[Anonymous No.13211692]

>>13211264
I like that. Not sure I agree with it though. I think in the following exchange...

>Anon 1: You shouldn't kill people for fun
>Anon 2: But why not?

...Anon 2 is being unreasonable in demanding a reason for not killing people for fun. You either see that it's wrong, intuitively, or you don't. Maybe, if there are moral facts at all, at least some of them are brute facts.

[Anonymous No.13211773]

Have another Jewish cutie - how did Sieg Heil Heidegger persuade her into bed?

[Anonymous No.13211849]

>>13211692
You shouldn’t kill people for fun for several reasons. It is difficult to get away with murder, and if you’re caught, you will likely be punished by the government or a friend/family member of the person you killed. Not only that, but you may gain a reputation as someone who kills. You would therefore likely lose friends as no one wants to be around someone who might kill him. Then of course there are spiritual rewards and punishments which can be taken into account: X religion holds that murder is wrong and limits my chance of benefiting my soul in the afterlife, therefore I should not do X.

Again, it is a problem to make claims without examining them and explaining your reasoning. This is bound to lead to confusion

[Anonymous No.13211852]

>>13211849
*therefore I should not murder

[Anonymous No.13211946]

>>13209588
read Kant

[Anonymous No.13212046]

>>13211849
>Anon 1: You shouldn't kill people for fun
>Anon 2: What's in it for me not to kill people for fun? I demand an explanation for why not killing people for fun benefits me, either in this world or the next
I agree there's some confusion somewhere

[Anonymous No.13212052]

>>13209588
It is an impossibility, however, that does not demand explanation.

[Anonymous No.13212121]

>>13212046
It all depends on the context of this particular conversation. If Anon 2 is actually considering killing someone, and Anon 1 makes his claim that Anon 2 shouldn’t kill people for fun, then obviously an explanation is required.

[Anonymous No.13212146]

>>13209588
There is no free will. Can arranged dominoes change the way they fall? Of course not. If we consider our consciousness is only a fraction of our brain activity and the entirety of the self is contained within your skull, do (You) have control over your own brain? If so, from whence? Newtonian physics is decidedly deterministic. And any randomness or unpredictability found in the universe is certainly not a product of human "free will".
All this I know and it is no comfort. I try not to think about it, and try to forget about it as soon as it comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.13212160]

>>13212121
But if Anon 2 can get away with it (he's a clever lad), and if he doesn't believe in post-mortem punishment, why shouldn't he kill people for fun? No explanation's required if there's no explanation.

[Anonymous No.13212186]

>>13209687
this is dumb because you can make this point about anything arguing for anything. Get your black swan fallacy shit out of here.

[Anonymous No.13212193]

>>13212146
yeah but why give a shit

[Anonymous No.13212232]

>>13212160
Anon 2 is still working with huge risks. He has no way of guaranteeing his innocence or that his belief about the afterlife is true. Just the guilt and fear of being wrong is enough of a punishment after the killing takes place (see Raskolnikov). Anon 2 isn’t that clever if he still wants to kill someone.

[Anonymous No.13212234]

The universe doesn't have free will, and we are simply a tiny part of the universe becoming aware of itself. So no, we don't have free will.

[Anonymous No.13212278]

>>13209727
>To have free will is practically the ability to do whatever it is you believe is best for you.
You don't know what free will is.

>>13211476
you replied to the wrong person.

>>13209843
>The more a being is able to control it's actions and thoughts, the more free will it has.
this is wrong. It does not have more free will, it has more will.

>>13209880
omnipotence is not possible.

>>13209959
empty space doesn't exist.

>>13210081
yes, because free will doesn't exist, along with "beyond the material", for an absence of space is an absence of time. I can't wait for you to respond to this with a reaction image.

>>13210085
>Isn't randomness possible in a purely physical universe?
true randomness denies that a cause has an effect, and if this is true, then that means there is an effect without a cause and a cause without an effect. But the only effect without a cause and cause without an effect is one absent of power (i.e something that is nonexistent by its very definition, since everything in existence has power). Thus, true randomness is impossible.

>>13210178
>Time is an illusion
which either implies there is a "real" time, which makes this "fake" time actually real because illusions are still real, or that time doesn't exist, but then space wouldn't exist either, and so nothing would exist, including your perception. But you can percieve, and so falsify that interpretation of your own theory.

>>13210279
>inherent futility of life
shut up failure.

>>13210294
>and my decisions are caused by... me.
and nothing causes you lol

>>13210651
anti-materialism is anti-life and comparable to anti-natalism, so I will give you the same argument I give to the anti-natalists: why haven't you killed yourself yet?

>>13210624
>fat guy is dumb
no surprises there

>>13210771
it is useful in determining that, but the argument on an anonymous board is pointless.

>>13211056
>the dictionary definition
lol

>>13211519
best post ITT.

>>13212052
obscurantists should be shot on sight.

[Anonymous No.13212288]

>>13212232
Anon 2 is living risk-free: the person he's going to kill for fun, Anon 1, is tied up in his cellar, and no one will ever miss Anon 1. Anon 2 has absolutely no qualms about the afterlife, nor do we have any reason to think he ever will. Raskolnikov had a conscience, which Anon 2 doesn't. Is there any reason why he shouldn't do it?

[Anonymous No.13212290]

>>13212232
>see Raskolnikov
Have you ever thought about how many people actually confess to murder if there's no evidence against them?

[Anonymous No.13212375]

>>13212288
If anon 2 will benefit more by killing anon 1 than not killing anon 1, then he should do it.

[Anonymous No.13212478]

Yes and no. Even the most dedicated materialists (Dennett eg) can be compatibilists. Look up what he says about it

However, a purely libertarian view on free will is probably impossible

[Anonymous No.13212508]

>>13209588
The dichotomy free-unfree is what is wrong. There is only contingency, that is increasingly blurred the more far a point in the chain of causalities is from the subject.

[Anonymous No.13212525]

>>13209588
The concept of "free will" itself is contained within the boundaries of the material, and thus in essence free will is nonexistent. Thus, we must consider free will relative to the material conditions in which it is, i.e. the human body.

[Anonymous No.13212561]

>>13209727
When people talk about free will they don't mean the will to do the "right" thing, they mean the internal choice to carry out a specific action or not. Raise your right hand or left hand right now, do you have a free choice between the two actions (or any other action you choose) or was the result pre-determined at the beginning of the universe? That's what people mean by free will.

If people didn't have free will in the sense you are talking about, then people would act completely randomly.

[Anonymous No.13212676]

>>13212561
>If people didn't have free will in the sense you are talking about, then people would act completely randomly.
No, a torture victim is a great example of someone who doesn’t have “free will.”

[Anonymous No.13212786]

>>13212676
No, the guy who drank hemlock is a great example of someone who does have free will

[Anonymous No.13214054]

>>13209588
Determinism is required for free will.

[Anonymous No.13214071]

>>13209588

kirkegaarde is the worst philosopher of all time. sickness unto death is just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual non-sense

[Anonymous No.13214082]

>>13209588

freewill doesn't exist because we are owned by ou biology and psychology and mental illnesses

for example did terry davis have the free will not to be a schizophrenic? i don't think he did. in that regard his behavior was determined by his mental illlness

[Anonymous No.13214085]

>>13214082

by our*

[Anonymous No.13214130]

>>13209811
Informed decision equates to free will. When decision is uninformed, it's not aligned with your interests and thus loses connection with you and becomes purely an extension of external forces.

[Anonymous No.13215657]

>>13214071
you're thinking of Either--Or. Complete trash devoid of merit.