/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17303155]

Is there any philosophical concept more terrifying than determinism?

[Anonymous No.17303213]

>>17303155
The Denial of Death

[Anonymous No.17303222]

Are you that attached to some flaky idea that you have an ability to make decisions that stand outside of nature and can make choices independently of external influence?

[Anonymous No.17303224]

>>17303213
By hume? That is just a play with causality.

[Anonymous No.17303251]

epistemological nihilism
infinite regress

[Anonymous No.17303265]

>>17303155
It isn't really terrifying, just weird. Knowing I don't control even myself or my thoughts made me question who actually I am, or if I even am at all. But I'm able to function just fine since our brains are already wired to keep on living anyway. It's something that only comes to my mind when I'm not doing anything. There's also multiple determinisms, like overall determinism caused by the big bang and smaller ones like biological determinism or psychological determinism. Really the more you find about determinism it really is the logical conclusion and that free will just isn't possible in any way, but the weird thing is that we're literally incompatible with determinism as conscious beings.

[Anonymous No.17303281]

>>17303251
OP here, both came to my mind. But the effect of both is much less significant.

[Anonymous No.17303311]

>>17303224

It's just an overrated thought experiment.
Like imagine being a person with conscious choice and pretending that you actually believe this. Imagine being such an edgelord that you literally deny a capacity that you experience at basically every waking moment just to prove a point. Absolutely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17303321]

>>17303224
>>17303311

Was supposed to be in response to OP. Denial of Death is by Ernest Becker, interesting book but kind of goes sideways into Freud scholarship for no real reason in the middle.

[Anonymous No.17303337]

>>17303311
If you don't feel that you don't have a slightest bit of free will at all on a daily basis you are unelightened.

Not more than an ape.

[Anonymous No.17303370]

>>17303251
Nihilism is, at it's core, not terrifying.

[Anonymous No.17303409]

>>17303155
>Is there any philosophical concept more terrifying than determinism?

There is one thing...
I don't even dare to utter the name...

Predestination

[Anonymous No.17303563]

>>17303251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EusSfJrUlmo

[Anonymous No.17303579]

>>17303155
What is terrifying about it?

[Anonymous No.17303594]

>>17303155
Catholic Free Will and Predestination

[Anonymous No.17303595]

>>17303579
The implications.

[Anonymous No.17303610]

Eternal Return
Solipsism

[Anonymous No.17303616]

>>17303579

[Anonymous No.17303628]

>>17303610
That is just a metaphysical construction, and a much worse one than god.

You just lost the game.

[Anonymous No.17303652]

>>17303610
>Eternal Return
Literally just a metaphor
>Solipsism
Not terrifying, just lame since you can't manipulate the reality created by your own mind

[Anonymous No.17303707]

>>17303628
>>17303652
Don't know bros but Eternal Return keeps me up at night sometimes.

[Anonymous No.17303728]

>>17303707
Just chose a metaphysical concept that helps you sleep, there is no hierarchie between them, you can chose and discard them as you please.

[Anonymous No.17303777]

>>17303628
You have now realized that you are playing _the_ metagame, the game of games. Your mind will now be possessed by the increasing suspicion that you are personally partaking in some ultimate all-encompassing strategic situation, and that the terrain of this game is found in speculative metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17303836]

>>17303777
I am still not sure about that, thus I am playing the meta-meta-game. (At least I think so)

[Anonymous No.17303870]

>Laplace's demon

Post yfw I had this thought under the shower when I was 15.

[Anonymous No.17303884]

>>17303870

[Anonymous No.17303906]

>>17303870

[Anonymous No.17303931]

>>17303870
mfw

[Anonymous No.17303949]

>>17303728
It's not in my control anon. No matter how I try to rationalise all this. I have read Borges "refutation" of ER but even that is not enough for me.
I feel like if I ever lost my mind then it will be definitely because Eternal Return.

[Anonymous No.17303981]

>>17303949
Why would one need to refute a purely human construct without any observability? Do you know rokos basilisk? Thats another axaple of these stupid metaphysics. There is an infinite amount really.

https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/rokos-basilisk-the-most-terrifying-thought-experiment-of-all-time.html

[Anonymous No.17303996]

>>17303981
Also I am very sorry for posting this reddit tier link.

[Anonymous No.17304048]

>>17303981

"Rokos Basilisk" is actually the Übermensch. Spergs always conceptualize the Übermensch as a super man, but the Übermensch is what is beyond man and that which can make itself the purpose of existence.

Any day now.

[Anonymous No.17304068]

>>17303981
Yeah observability is good point but this thought hit me in my most venerable states.
Can you suggest some book on observability?

[Anonymous No.17304080]

>>17303155
Yeah, obviously.

[Anonymous No.17304134]

>>17303222
Yes.

Perception of an internal locus of control seems generally beneficial. The individual benefit supercedes the baseless assertions on the truth of the matter.

[Anonymous No.17304180]

>>17304068
Well I am a german scholar, so Kant is always my the choice.

But that is a hard read.

[Anonymous No.17304190]

>>17304080

[Anonymous No.17304326]

>>17303836
Participation is universal and independent of awareness of the metagame. The metagame is won by being consciously aware of the metagame - in other words, you just won the metagame.

https://timoteopinto.medium.com/thegame23-creating-meta-narratives-as-a-hypersigil-within-a-larger-arg-scenario-for-personal-e8a69ddec83a
https://pastebin.com/4s91qRn6
https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/singmem.php
https://vimeo.com/124736839

[Anonymous No.17304341]

>>17303155
For me it's the self being an illusion. nobody home in the cartesian theatre, life as a dream of being a person inside a locked room etc.

[Anonymous No.17304355]

>>17303155
Quantum Death

[Anonymous No.17304534]

>>17304355
Everything sounds better when you put Quantum in front of it.

Quantum popsicles.

[Anonymous No.17304766]

if you truly understand determinsm, than you will get that it changes absolutely nothing about your life or the way you make decisions.

[Anonymous No.17305504]

>>17303563
top kek, very unexpected

[Anonymous No.17305548]

>>17303155
No, just love god bro.

[Anonymous No.17305676]

>>17303155
I started basically believing in that around age 17 and the only real effect it had was that I started finding it hard to remain angry at people because after the initial feeling wears off you have to contend with the fact that they literally could not have done otherwise, they are just a little conscious vessel watching it unfold like you are.

I have not 100% ruled out free will though. Maybe it exists in some way we truly can't understand with normal logic, the same way we don't seem to be able to understand consciousness and certain overarching metaphysical concepts.

[Anonymous No.17305865]

>>17303981
The thought experiment is stupid. If the machine is superintelligent, then it could do no wrong.

[Anonymous No.17305954]

roko's basilisk

[Anonymous No.17306957]

If determinism is, then God is. That's a good thing

[Anonymous No.17307437]

>>17304134
determinism doesn't negate this though. your mind and will isn't outside of it.

the problem is being unable to truly comprehend determinism and that determinism is often being presented in some shitty physical causality ball hits ball way. otherwise it doesn't change much.

[Anonymous No.17307467]

>>17307437
>your mind and will isn't outside of it.
forgot to emphasise that your will does exist. perceiving it as reducible to some chemical reactions (an example) has no primacy. taking will and thoughts and feelings as being more real than the chemicals is just as valid. they're perception snapshots, but to favour, to make primary, some model that gives you concepts that tell you nothing about your will and thoughts and feelings, and cannot be used to construct them either, over your actual will and thoughts and feelings is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.17307477]

>>17303155
you have no knowledge of the future, so why does its mutability having any effect on you

[Anonymous No.17307545]

>>17304326
you stole my idea you cunt

[Anonymous No.17308291]

>>17304766
see
>>17303616

[Anonymous No.17308313]

>>17305548
this :^), but Christ

[Anonymous No.17308322]

>>17303265
>It isn't really terrifying, just weird.

I keep doing the same shit everyday even when I know I should be working. I cant even clean my room

[Anonymous No.17308340]

>>17304534
Quantum Anal Sex

[Anonymous No.17308346]

>>17304534
Quantum Milf

[Anonymous No.17308442]

bump

[Anonymous No.17308451]

What a nice artwork.

[Anonymous No.17308469]

>>17303870
>Laplace's demon
Disproved by Turing

[Anonymous No.17308492]

>>17303155
Well, the fag said you can not deny your own existence for a reason.
You say every thing is determined but you can do nothing about it nor can you really mean that

[Anonymous No.17308526]

>>17303155
I am a compatibilist. It seems to me that determinism is necessary for free will to exist. Something with free will necessarily acts in according to its own interests. Even if a free-will possessing agent does something charitable, selfless, or even self-sacrificing, it does that thing because it is more fulfilled by that action than any other. For the decision to be the agent's own, it must be able to take all stimuli and information in and process it to come to a decision. This process hinges on determinism. If the world is not deterministic, our decisions are arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.17308589]

Determinism is incompatible with our minds.

It cannot be taken to its ultimate conclusion.

It is impossible to use it to make any influences in a person's base instincts, attitudes, or society in general

[Anonymous No.17308618]

>>17303155
Determinism is extremely comforting especially to all to not-so-successful people like me. The real terror comes from the concept of free will.

[Anonymous No.17308637]

>>17303563
Spongebob has an episode about eternal recurrence and it's pretty dark desu

[Anonymous No.17308693]

>>17303579
Determinists like to think they're brave by supposing mommy universe does everything for them and they're not responsible for anything, and somehow that makes their position more logical (it doesn't). This is an absolute inversion of reality. Dostoyevski's the Grand Inquisitor illustrates well how the opposite is true, that the possibility of free will is most terrifying when imposed onto man.
>>17303610
>Eternal Return
>Solipsism
Laughably childish and not terrifying in the slightest.
>>17303870
>Laplace's demon
It's just wrong, refuted by quantum mechanics. Knowing the state at one point in time is not enough to determine the future, the best you can get is a probabilistic result which gets less and less useful the more complex your system gets.
I'm assuming the other poster who said it was refuted by Turing assumes that it could be used to determine the halting of a general algorithm, but I don't believe that is necessary for Laplace's demon. It could take more time to calculate the state the more into the future you look, and it could actually be impossible to look so far into the future that you can say the algorithm doesn't halt.

[Anonymous No.17308705]

>>17308693
>It's just wrong, refuted by quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.17308721]

>>17308705
The best accounts for the outcomes of quantum experiments are probabilistic. Knowing the position/momentum of a particle is not enough to determine the outcome of the experiment. This refutes Laplace.

[Anonymous No.17308746]

>>17308693
>wrong, refuted by quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.17308751]

>>17308693
>Laughably childish and not terrifying in the slightest.
So you tell me a terrifying thought then!

[Anonymous No.17308753]

>>17303222
Just checking these trips real quick.

[Anonymous No.17308762]

>>17303777
Checking these trips too.

[Anonymous No.17308778]

>>17303222
Free will doesn't saying anything about making decisions "outside of nature", that's meaningless gibberish. Obviously if you have free will, the decision process is part of nature. And nobody asserts that the decisions are independent of external influence. Obviously our decisions are influenced to some extent by our genes and our environment. Free will merely asserts that people are capable of making some choices, of influencing the future to some extent.
I'm consistently amazed by how bad free will deniers are at basic thinking.

[Anonymous No.17308781]

>>17308746
see
>>17308721
Pick up a basic textbook on quantum mechanics if this confuses me. Or ask me an actual question.

[Anonymous No.17308787]

>>17308778
its a pointless argument, like debating whether orange is more yellow or red

[Anonymous No.17308794]

>>17308787
It's not. Free will as a philosophical issue has big psychological implications and is a very interesting issue that's not at all obvious. If you think it's like asking whether orange is more yellow or red then you clearly don't understand the issue at hand.

[Anonymous No.17308823]

>>17308794
There are psychological implications as to whether the next shit I take will give me a hernia. Doesn't mean its very meaningful for me to deliberate on the circumference of my asshole.
It's interesting, and it isn't obvious, by design. Like a riddle with no solution, you can think all you want, but will never find the satisfactory answer. It is an artifact of language.
The only understanding to be gained is already possessed by everybody who's never heard of the topic.

[Anonymous No.17308857]

>>17308823
>Like a riddle with no solution, you can think all you want, but will never find the satisfactory answer. It is an artifact of language.
I have found a satisfactory solution: yes I do have free will, but others might not. I welcome to be challenged about it.
>The only understanding to be gained is already possessed by everybody who's never heard of the topic.
This is absolutely not true. Most people are completely clueless about the topic.

[Anonymous No.17308858]

>>17303155
What do you mean? determinism is extremely comfy and effective at analyzing psychological issues. I no longer accept the ridiculous dogma of "lack of will" and just purely analyze my environment and it makes 10000000000x more sense

In a weird way, determinism allows you to have more free will lmao (in a phenomenological sense)

[Anonymous No.17308868]

>>17303155
determinism VS Free will debate is impossible to construct because its impossible to construct a "Will that is free"

Therefore the entire argument is retarded and a waste of time. If you want just take a compatibilist stance and create strong ethical dualities

[Anonymous No.17308874]

>>17308868
>impossible to construct a "Will that is free"
What do you mean by this? Do you want a definition of free will? How about ability to influence the future to some extent?

[Anonymous No.17308876]

>>17308868
That is not what this thread is about retard.

[Anonymous No.17308889]

>>17308874
>How about ability to influence the future to some extent?

How do you know your decision to influence it was yours in the first place? You must have an a priori duality that constitutes what is good and bad and attach the free will to everything that is good in that future

[Anonymous No.17308894]

>>17308889
this is why compatibilism is the only logical conclusion to this argument, because free will is inherently dependent on non-freedom

[Anonymous No.17308905]

>>17308889
>How do you know your decision to influence it was yours in the first place?
This is the crux of the debate. If you're a determinist, you think it wasn't yours, if you're a free will believer, you think it's yours, at least in some cases.
>You must have an a priori duality that constitutes what is good and bad and attach the free will to everything that is good in that future
This is absolutely retarded. Good and bad has NOTHING to do with free will.
>>17308894
Compatibilism is retarded. There is no middle ground. As much as I disagree with Cosmic skeptic, he made a good video debunking compatibilism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqj32jxOC0Y

[Anonymous No.17308926]

>>17308905
>This is absolutely retarded. Good and bad has NOTHING to do with free will.
My guy it has EVERYTHING to do with free will, wtf are you talking about
Its the entirety of the argument. Its ridiculous to debate free will VS determinism beyond the phenomenological perspective so yes, good and bad is all free will vs non-free will is

[Anonymous No.17308936]

>>17308905
>Compatibilism is retarded. There is no middle ground. As much as I disagree with Cosmic skeptic, he made a good video debunking compatibilism here:

Ive seen it before and all he does is drag down the argument from the phenomenological POV, which again, is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.17308937]

>>17308926
> good and bad is all free will vs non-free will is
Explain how.

[Anonymous No.17308943]

>>17308936
Explain how, retard.

[Anonymous No.17308947]

>>17308937
how do u even decide to do one thing vs another without implicitly understanding one as good and the other worse. literally incoherent

[Anonymous No.17308952]

>>17303155
Cartesianism lasting into the 21st is a true work of horror.

[Anonymous No.17308972]

>>17308937
If you have ultimate free will, why would you even do things that are bad? And I mean this in all possible ways that good and bad can be defined
You have to be a retarded to assume free will can stand on its own without a counterpart, the moment you decide to define free will it can be defined in other ways, again and again towards infinity
The most you can do in regards to having free will is to have a strong ethical guideline and follow through with it

[Anonymous No.17308995]

the most annoying thing is people using terms they dont understand, like infinite regress or circular reasoning or calling "fallacy" to nothing

[Anonymous No.17309014]

>>17308995
>You used a fallacy bro ahah your entire argument is refuted ahahaha I win bro

The only way to argue with philosophy undergraduates is to punch them

[Anonymous No.17309025]

>>17308947
There are other categories by which to judge actions than good vs bad. Plenty of people decide to do things they view to be bad, for other reasons, like binge eating.
>>17308972
>why would you even do things that are bad?
Because you want to.
>And I mean this in all possible ways that good and bad can be defined
You can define good to mean whatever is done, but then the notion of good/bad becomes a useless triviality and not interesting.
>You have to be a retarded to assume free will can stand on its own without a counterpart, the moment you decide to define free will it can be defined in other ways, again and again towards infinity
What's wrong with the definition I gave? Free will is the ability to choose between different possible universes.
>The most you can do in regards to having free will is to have a strong ethical guideline and follow through with it
Ethics is completely orthogonal to the metaphysical issue at hand.

[Anonymous No.17309049]

>>17309025
>Plenty of people decide to do things they view to be bad, for other reasons, like binge eating
You're only giving compatibilism more credence lmao
You're assuming that people are doing a bad thing therefore there exists something they consider good, and this good would be made out of their own free will, because if it was free he wouldnt be binge eating, ergo there is free will and non-free will at the same time
>There are other categories by which to judge actions than good vs bad
Jesus, just say positive vs negative valence, you're arguing in bad faith here

>Ethics is completely orthogonal to the metaphysical issue at hand
This is the problem with seeing things beyond the phenomenological POV because you will never reach any conclusion (altough determinism always seems more likely)
Who the fuck cares about the metaphysics of this, its hopeless to find anything. Ethics, on the other hand, accounts for all that can be said about free will and is actually what really matters at the end of the day and you will always reach compatibilism

[Anonymous No.17309213]

>>17309049
>and this good would be made out of their own free will
What the fuck is this gibberish. Explain what you mean.
>because if it was free he wouldnt be binge eating
Doesn't follow.
>ergo there is free will and non-free will at the same time
Completely retarded statement. It's impossible for something to be both true and false at the same time.
> just say positive vs negative valence
Explain what you mean by positive valence.
>you will never reach any conclusion (altough determinism always seems more likely)
I did reach a conclusion. Free will exists and determinism is false.
>Who the fuck cares about the metaphysics of this, its hopeless to find anything
Maybe for low IQ people like you who are incapable of thought and imagination. Not for me.

[Anonymous No.17309308]

>>17309213
you´re obviously a philosophy undergraduate or <18 years old to not be able to grasp simple axioms like "People will always do what benefits them the most, in which way this is constructed" but I´ll go through your points 1 by 1 to further elaborate on why you´re retarded

>What the fuck is this gibberish. Explain what you mean.
Already explained above

>Completely retarded statement. It's impossible for something to be both true and false at the same time.
this just shows you´re a retarded dualist with no imagination. Read Kant and Hegel

>Explain what you mean by positive valence.
????? what is there to explain? do you not know what those words mean? If so google them

>I did reach a conclusion. Free will exists and determinism is false.
Explain how without any theological backing

>Maybe for low IQ people like you who are incapable of thought and imagination. Not for me.
Again, you can´t go beyond dualism and yet you claim to have thought and imagination lmao. Please explain your metaphysics to me then

[Anonymous No.17309331]

>>17304048
Thus the ubermensch is tied with fucking teleology. Fucking Christ why don’t people talk about the teleology. It’s the equivalent of a human thinking about death, most philosophers like to ignore teleology like it’s irrelevant. You’re all kikes.

[Anonymous No.17309337]

>>17309331
Oh and my answer is teleology

[Anonymous No.17309351]

>>17303155
Free will is literally self-evident apodictic fact.

[Anonymous No.17309390]

>>17309308
Read a book.

[Anonymous No.17309392]

>>17309351
cope

[Anonymous No.17309412]

>>17309390
you still haven´t explained your metaphysics, so I´ll assume you have no idea about what you´re talking about

[Anonymous No.17309439]

>>17308952
Why though.

[Anonymous No.17309464]

>>17303155
>I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange! Incidentally, I am not at all as well as I had hoped. Exceptional weather here too! Eternal change of atmospheric conditions!—that will yet drive me out of Europe! I must have clear skies for months, else I get nowhere. Already six severe attacks of two or three days each!! — With affectionate love, Your friend

Why are you such a feeble-minded person anon? Why can't you be more like Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17309465]

>>17309412
It's not clear what you mean by explaining my metaphysics. I already explained part of my metaphysics, in that I deny determinism and believe in free will. What else do you want to know?

[Anonymous No.17309473]

>>17309465
>What else do you want to know?
how you came to this conclusion of course

[Anonymous No.17309478]

>>17309473
By thinking about it deeply.

[Anonymous No.17309503]

>>17309478
can´t you give specifics? I mean its pretty gay to take a stance and then not be able to explain that stance

[Anonymous No.17309515]

>>17303728
It was never intended as a mere thought experiment by Nietzsche, you've just not read enough

[Anonymous No.17309530]

>>17309464
>Why can't you be more like Nietzsche?
Because Nietzsche was a smoothbrain that is only ever read by highschoolers.

[Anonymous No.17309538]

>>17309515
I have read more than you, trust me on that part.

[Anonymous No.17309549]

>>17309538
Do keep on believing that as you do nothing but recite Heidegger. Retard.

[Anonymous No.17309553]

>>17309503
I have evaluated tons of arguments for determinism and found all of them logically unsound or dependent on assumptions that are simply false. I've also argued with tons of people on /lit/ about this issue to see where my knowledge might be lacking and also found the same thing, I won every argument and the opponent had to resort to namecalling.
For most facts in my life I use the principle that as long as something immediately seems true and there are no reasons to doubt my perception, it's reasonable to believe the fact. Since I have the perception of free will and since I am not aware of any reasons to doubt this perception, it is only reasonable for me to believe that I have it. I am open to have my belief challenged.
I do not have a complete metaphysics. I think whoever claims to have one is a fool. Our scientific and mathematical achievements have radically changed our understanding of some of the most fundamental metaphysical facts. It's likely they will continue to be challenged, and asserting you have it all figured out it is simply unwarranted arrogance in light of these facts.
If you have anything more specific you want to ask about, please go ahead.

[Anonymous No.17309559]

>>17309464
god Nietzsche is so cringe with his instinct shit and refering to smell all the time. You can tell he had that satisfied smirk on his face whenever he wrote it. The most cringe shit of all though is whenever he does this little pause before pointing something out with a --

[Anonymous No.17309563]

>>17309553
Good response anon, there´s nothing more to ask honestly. I disagree with your stance but respect it

[Anonymous No.17309579]

>>17309563
If you want you can present an argument in favor of determinism/lack of free will and we can discuss it.
If it's the case that you simply don't have the perception of free will (I have talked to such people before) then it is entirely reasonable for you to believe you don't have free will and there's nothing I can do to convince you that other people do.

[Anonymous No.17309594]

>>17309553
Another anon here, and I'm glad to found someone who can literally perceive free will. Since I myself am not endowed with such an ability, I kindly ask you to define the free will which sits before you. Very simple, I know, but what could ever be a challenge for a man of your skills.

[Anonymous No.17309595]

>>17309351
The exact opposite is a fact.

[Anonymous No.17309597]

>>17304134
That is only for the pathetic who are desperate for control. Almost all great leaders believe in fate, not free will.

[Anonymous No.17309608]

>>17309579
I have to go study so I really can´t stay to discuss
But most of my opinions in regards to free will come from a mixture of Spinoza, Nietzsche and modern day psychology (mostly behaviourism)
My main problem with free will is the Realist/phenomenological division that people usually dont make when it comes to this debate
On a realist perspective I´m a determinist but on a phenomenological perspective I´m a compatibilist, because I believe this is the most sound and reasonable way to live and also what I think the non-theological proofs point to.
In my view, the only way to implement any sort of free will without theology is trough ethics

[Anonymous No.17309609]

>>17309464
>>I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange! Incidentally, I am not at all as well as I had hoped. Exceptional weather here too! Eternal change of atmospheric conditions!—that will yet drive me out of Europe! I must have clear skies for months, else I get nowhere. Already six severe attacks of two or three days each!! — With affectionate love, Your friend

Was ist autism? What a fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.17309617]

>>17309549
There is more than one anon itt with you.

[Anonymous No.17309629]

>>17309553
Actually a good response.
No an argument against determinism though.

[Anonymous No.17309639]

>>17309559
This.
What a fucking toolbag.

[Anonymous No.17309742]

>>17309594
>I kindly ask you to define the free will which sits before you
Free will is the ability to make choices that influence the future. It's obviously not a material thing so it doesn't sit before me, but a lot of perceptions are of nonmaterial things (for example memory, imagination or abstract thought).

[Anonymous No.17309762]

>>17309742
Seems legit, now tell me about the governed will. I can probably guess what it is, but I do not wish to presume.

[Anonymous No.17309844]

>>17309629
Not sure what you mean by that exactly, so I'm just going to assume it's something close to will that is opposite of free. In that case, you do not actually make any decisions, you only have the illusion of making the decisions, in a similar way that a child with an unplugged controller thinks he's controlling the character when in fact he does not influence anything that's going on. In the case of free will, which is much more metaphysical and abstract than the video game example, the denial of free will essentially means the nonexistence of self, perhaps some sort of monism where everything is one, there are just atoms whizzing around according to some inanimate laws and we are just a small, undistinguished part of it.
There's also a less metaphysical, more practical sense of governed will that can be used in court if for example someone hypnotizes someone else to murder someone, and the person being hypnotized had no control over the decision (assuming this is even possible). In this case it can be said that the person did not act of his own free will, that his self which was supposed to be the agent has been overtaken by some other agent, who must be judged instead.
Or a more down-to-earth example of an alcoholic who feels a divided self, one day he drinks and the other he doesn't even recognize his former self. In this case the question of whether he could have free will becomes complicated because there doesn't seem to be "he", there are two inconsistent incompatible selves which fight. You could say his self was overtaken, his will was governed by his instincts which demand he drink.

[Anonymous No.17309855]

>>17309762
Not sure what you mean by that exactly, so I'm just going to assume it's something close to will that is opposite of free. In that case, you do not actually make any decisions, you only have the illusion of making the decisions, in a similar way that a child with an unplugged controller thinks he's controlling the character when in fact he does not influence anything that's going on. In the case of free will, which is much more metaphysical and abstract than the video game example, the denial of free will essentially means the nonexistence of self, perhaps some sort of monism where everything is one, there are just atoms whizzing around according to some inanimate laws and we are just a small, undistinguished part of it.
There's also a less metaphysical, more practical sense of governed will that can be used in court if for example someone hypnotizes someone else to murder someone, and the person being hypnotized had no control over the decision (assuming this is even possible). In this case it can be said that the person did not act of his own free will, that his self which was supposed to be the agent has been overtaken by some other agent, who must be judged instead.
Or a more down-to-earth example of an alcoholic who feels a divided self, one day he drinks and the other he doesn't even recognize his former self. In this case the question of whether he could have free will becomes complicated because there doesn't seem to be "he", there are two inconsistent incompatible selves which fight. You could say his self was overtaken, his will was governed by his instincts which demand he drink.

[Anonymous No.17309879]

>>17309629
>No an argument against determinism though.
Yeah I did not present an argument against determinism. If you accept free will then the standard incompatibilist arguments present a good case against determinism, in my opinion.
I don't think it's possible to argue a priori, without assuming free will, against determinism. Even quantum mechanics cannot do that, all it does is render the old standard argument for determinism from physics invalid. Since it seems very plausible that there could be a universe without humans which is completely deterministic, as in a computer simulation, an argument against determinism, if there be one, would have to take humans or consciousness into account somehow.
If you have any particular argument FOR determinism that you want to discuss, feel free to do so.

[Anonymous No.17310040]

>>17309855
To be frank, your post is entirely unclear and beyond me, despite the efforts you went through for my sake. It is my mistake, of course, because I was being cryptic when I said governed will. You see, like hot and cold and big and small, I thought that the opposite of freedom was government, tyranny, slavery or whatever word you like, and that if we can talk about free will, we must also be able to talk about the governed, determined will. Otherwise, it would be redundant to call it free will instead of simply will, no? let's start from the very beginning; What is the will in itself? Tell me that much, then from that point on, it would be easier to elucidate further details.

[Anonymous No.17310113]

>>17310040
To me it seems that free will is something different than simply will that is free. It's not clear to me what is meant by a will that is free. The concept of free will is quite another thing however, in a similar way that the White House is not just a house that is white. Free will is the notion that people have the ability to influence the future. I don't think it's helpful to consider will as a separate issue for this.

[Anonymous No.17310126]

>>17309879
this >>17303616 is literally you.

[Anonymous No.17310156]

Why the fuck we are still stuck in determinism/free will debate after pic related?

[Anonymous No.17310167]

>>17310113
I would appreciate a quick response to this question: Have you read the Platonic Dialogues? Euthryphro in particular?

[Anonymous No.17310197]

>>17310113
Here's another, more pertinent, question: have you ever posted this picture before?

[Anonymous No.17310201]

>>17310167
No.
>>17310197
You bet I have.

[Anonymous No.17310214]

>>17303222
Checked and common-sense pilled. The idea of free will that people have is nonsensical. If your actions are not fully affected by the things that happen to you and your mental processes, they would just be random in which case you would have even less “free will”.

[Anonymous No.17310236]

>>17310214
Mental processes are part of the self.

[Anonymous No.17310242]

>>17308778
>nobody asserts that the decisions are independent of external influence.
They do though. That is the whole argument. You can act according to your nature, which is as close to free will as you can get, but your decisions don’t transcend time. Like the other poster said, it doesn’t matter, but as a thought exercise, how could something be neither caused nor random?

[Anonymous No.17310249]

>>17303155
There are plenty of cowards who prefer determinism, this is more terrifying than determinism itself, which is a ridiculous metaphysical theory.

[Anonymous No.17310257]

>>17310156
Because that is fucking bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17310259]

>>17310236
so what

[Anonymous No.17310266]

>>17310257
lmao seethe, tard

[Anonymous No.17310298]

>>17310242
>That is the whole argument
Well at least it has never been my argument, and I believe in free will.
For me the argument has always seemed to have been about whether there is a self as a distinct entity that can act and influence the future or whether the self is an illusion.
>but your decisions don’t transcend time.
I don't see how they would have to do that for free will to exist.
>how could something be neither caused nor random
To me the whole ontological primacy of causal chains which you seem to accept is very questionable. Sure, causal relations are very useful in our day to day lives but that's not enough to extrapolate them and expect them to be similar on a metaphysical scale. To you accept infinite regresses of causal chains? How do you make sense of them?
>>17310259
So saying that your decisions are influenced by your mental processes is in accord with free will.

[Anonymous No.17310308]

>>17310156
I can induce desires in myself. For example, I know if I choose to watch people eat delicious food, I will create a desire for delicious food.

[Anonymous No.17310312]

>>17308858
This

[Anonymous No.17310326]

>>17303155
Solipsism and the irrefutable zombie hypothesis

[Anonymous No.17310328]

>>17310308
Also you can carefully shape yourself to one day like classical music.

[Anonymous No.17310339]

>>17310201
I thought so. There is this genius section where Socrates asks euthryphro whethor the Gods love pious things, or things are pious because the Gods love them. After Euthryphro had answered the latter, Socrates then went on to compare it to sight, asking if eyes see seen things, or if things are seen because eyes see them. Of course, a question like that is only a ridiculous non-sequitor which did not reveal anything meaningful. I was reminded of this when I saw you choosing between Free will and Will that is free, because it seemed that you were mistaking the same thing for two different things. But enough of that tangent.

I have a suspicion that the arguments between you are determinists are really only confusions and misunderstandings, and that infact you both agree with each other but simply don't know it, being too caught up in your language games. That is why I'm asking you to define Will by itself. Shouldn't be too difficult.

[Anonymous No.17310343]

>>17303155
What's terrifying about it?
There is nothing more liberating than knowing that all your failures and shortcomings were predetermined and that there was nothing that you could have done differently.
At this point you can accept life for what it is rather than what you think it could have been.

[Anonymous No.17310346]

>>17310308
>>17310328
It went completely over your head, read it again

[Anonymous No.17310349]

>>17310266
>Γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Don't google that, you know it unless you are a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17310360]

>>17310298
I don’t disagree with you on anything. Our mental processes are complex enough that we could not chart them or understand them truly so it doesn’t matter to what extent they are what we consider our “self”.

[Anonymous No.17310396]

>>17310156
Of course I can want what I want. Fe. I can want to want to eat more salad.

With training this is also achievable. Meta-want.

[Anonymous No.17310408]

>>17310328
Yeah, and not just classical music, but pretty much any area that does not explicitly cause you pain and has some form of positive feedback you can learn to like. You can learn to like running, for example, as I have. It's building a habit. In the beginning I used to hate running and everything associated with it, but by forcing myself to do it anyway, I have learned to like it. Now I never feel like I have to force myself, the desire to run comes itself every two days, I just put on my shoes and go out without any psychological friction.
>>17310339
>I have a suspicion that the arguments between you are determinists are really only confusions and misunderstandings
From personal experience I would disagree. Many arguments by determinists were quite logical and reasonable, they just depended on implicit assumptions that are more likely to be false. Some of the arguments against free will do seem like language games, for example when people say all that we do is created by instinct, and instinct is defined by that what people do, and since we don't have control over our instincts, we don't have free will. These sorts of circular arguments whose content lies primarily in syntax and not semantics, I always try to avoid.
>>17310346
It didn't. You can choose, shape and decide what you want. If you can make it into a more explicit argument against free will, please do.

[Anonymous No.17310423]

>>17303155
The concept that some people believe in determinism.

[Anonymous No.17310428]

>>17310408
>In the beginning I used to hate running and everything associated with it, but by forcing myself to do it anyway, I have learned to like it.
Yet you wanted to force yourself to like running in the first place. Again, read it more carefully

[Anonymous No.17310437]

>>17310428
>Yet you wanted to force yourself to like running in the first place
Yes, and? Your point, please.

[Anonymous No.17310446]

>>17310408
when people say all that we do is created by instinct, and instinct is defined by that what people do, and since we don't have control over our instincts, we don't have free will. These sorts of circular arguments whose content lies primarily in syntax and not semantics, I always try to avoid.

This has literally nothing to do with determinism.

Determinism means that it was already decided that you would read my post when our sphere of logic/universe/multiverse was created born.

Which anybody can prove beyond the possibility of a doubt.

You did not decide to open 4chan today, the things that have happened in the past have decided that you have opened 4chan today, and also how often you will open it until your death.

[Anonymous No.17310450]

>>17310437
You didn't choose that.

[Anonymous No.17310462]

>>17310428
So its an infinite regress?

[Anonymous No.17310468]

>>17310437
Retard, you had no choice but to make a decision about running.

[Anonymous No.17310473]

>>17310450
He literally did.

[Anonymous No.17310485]

>>17310446
>This has literally nothing to do with determinism.
It does. Not in the metaphysical sense, but in the sense that's relevant to the free will debate. Biological determinism, if you will.
>Determinism means that it was already decided that you would read my post when our sphere of logic/universe/multiverse was created born.
Yeah this is the metaphysical-philosophical determinism.
>Which anybody can prove beyond the possibility of a doubt.
Oh please do. I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.17310517]

>>17310450
Suppose I didn't. So what?
>>17310468
>you had no choice
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.17310543]

>>17310408
Here's what I mean: the notion that people have the ability to influence the future is not entirely unique to those who believe in a Free Will. Determinists also say that the actions of the past determine the future. In reality, you both technically agree, but are mad because its called a different thing.

[Anonymous No.17310545]

>>17310517
You had no choice in choosing that you're going to make a decision about running.

[Anonymous No.17310590]

>>17310485
>Oh please do. I'll wait.
English is not my first language and also I don't want to type a lenghty paragraph, so you will have to do some thinking on your own. I am sure that is not a problem for you!

I am here writing this because I am a bored college student which I am because my parents are rich, which is because my family took their chances in the first world war which is because I am english, which is because my lineage goes back to the king david (or whatever) which is because my ... because earth exists because mechanistic ... because because... because existence in itself...

and so on, just a chain of Kausalitäten.

Now you do it! take this exact moment (reding my post) and work it through to the moment our sphere of logic/universe/multiverse was created born.

Also think about the entwinements of our fate, going bach to the ...

[Anonymous No.17310598]

>>17310545
Of course he did, that is a trivial proof.

[Anonymous No.17310609]

>>17310598
How so?

[Anonymous No.17310671]

>>17310609
Meta-meta-want

You can want to live more healthy which makes you want which makes you want and so on.

You get it now? Infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.17310692]

>>17303616
What does it matter? It wouldn't have made a difference if the doors he didn't pick were real options because he would not have picked them.

[Anonymous No.17310694]

>>17310485
The truth is you have not made a single decision since you were born and you will not make a single decision until you die.

The time and place of your death were already decidided before you werde born, as were the last thoughts that you will ever have.

[Anonymous No.17310703]

>>17303652
>Literally just a metaphor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

[Anonymous No.17310706]

>>17310671
You had no choice but to make a decision about a healthy life.

[Anonymous No.17310724]

>>17310692
That was not a post you just made, that was a brainfart.

[Anonymous No.17310732]

>>17310706
Ok it sadly seems like you are a brainlet. Propably american too.

This conversation is over.

[Anonymous No.17310750]

>>17310732
>ebin rage quit
this isn't WOW you fucking braindead redditor.
also you had no choice but the make a decision about this "conversation".

[Anonymous No.17310770]

[Anonymous No.17310777]

>>17310590
Let's look at only the very first part of your causal chain.
>I am here writing this because I am a bored college student
This is a nice story that explains something. However, you being bored does not mean you will browse 4chan. This means that you browsing 4chan is not determined by your being bored. There were times when you were bored but you didn't browse 4chan.
>Now you do it! take this exact moment (reding my post) and work it through to the moment our sphere of logic/universe/multiverse was created born.
This is impossible to do. I can try to come up with a nice story that begins from the creation of the universe and ends with my typing this post, but that's all it is, a nice story without being anything resembling a causal chain where one event necessarily entails the subsequent one.
These causal chains are relevant in day to day situations and help make sense of what's going on, but to go beyond that and assign some metaphysical significance to them needs more justification.
Do you know that for example in physics, there is very little talk of causation. When there is causation, it's usually something unexplained, a singularity which physicists look at like a black box. Usually there is just equations in which everything is interlinked and there's no strict boundary between one thing causing one thing and not another. Look at maxwell's equations, or Einstein's theory of gravitation. There's no causation there, so the case that causation is somehow fundamental and that every single event has an antecedent cause needs more justification.
>>17310545
Suppose I didn't. So what?
>>17310694
This is a highly intriguing proposition which I used to believe in the past. However, I found all the arguments in favor of it highly inadequate. Would you like to present an argument of your own to support your view?

[Anonymous No.17310791]

>>17310777
>This is a nice story that explains something. However, you being bored does not mean you will browse 4chan. This means that you browsing 4chan is not determined by your being bored. There were times when you were bored but you didn't browse 4chan.

Already wrong. Please don't force me to explain it like you are 5 years old!

[Anonymous No.17310803]

>>17310791
>Already wrong
Do you mean to say you were never bored as a child before discovering 4chan? How curious.

[Anonymous No.17310819]

>>17310777
>Suppose I didn't.
Why you're supposing when it the truth?
>So what?
Then you have never made any decision in your life.

[Anonymous No.17310831]

>>17310777
>highly inadequate
They are not inadequate or adequate, they are sufficient.

[Anonymous No.17310837]

>>17310803
Are taking this conversation serious?

[Anonymous No.17310843]

>>17310831
Well then, give one sufficient argument.
>>17310819
>Then you have never made any decision in your life.
How does that follow?

[Anonymous No.17310854]

>>17310837

[Anonymous No.17310875]

>>17310843
If A+B=C then C-B=A.

Here is your one sufficient argument.

[Anonymous No.17310895]

I have to say I am highly disappointed in /lit/ for not knowing basic philosophy.

I begin to think that the majority of the userbase actually just watches philosophy on youtube while stoned.

[Anonymous No.17310906]

>>17310875
Embarrassing. If you have no argument, just admit it. There's no shame in that.
>>17310895
Go on, share your wisdom with us.

[Anonymous No.17310914]

>>17310843
a leads to b and b leads to c

[Anonymous No.17310924]

>>17310914
Do I really need to explain to you what an actual argument looks like?

[Anonymous No.17310928]

>>17310777
You just have not understood it, I guess my
>so you will have to do some thinking on your own. I am sure that is not a problem for you!

Was a little bit too optimistic. I tend to forget how tremendously stupid the average "bloke" is.

I need to work on this issue, my issue to expect too much from people.

[Anonymous No.17310936]

>>17310924
Please do.

[Anonymous No.17310942]

>>17310906
Okay my last attempt, my own test of endurance!
There is a nice refutation of the free will in Stirners the Ego and its own that EVEN YOU could understand.

I am using could not should because you actually shocked me with your inability to deduce.

[Anonymous No.17310953]

>>17310928
I thought you would be able to read my post and actually respond to my points. Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of doing so. I understand you're an ESL, so if you want me to clarify any particular points that I made, just ask. No need to get so defensive.

[Anonymous No.17310967]

>>17310936
An argument is when you lay out some assumptions and then use logical reasoning to arrive at a conclusion.
"a leads to b and b leads to c" is not an argument against free will. You have not explained what is a,b,c and you didn't even mention free will or determinism once in your post.
Next time write down what is the point you're trying to make, lay out the premises and the steps of reasoning that lead to the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17310968]

>>17310953
>ESL
I dont know that term.

I can't adress your response if you have not understood my explaination.

[Anonymous No.17310976]

>>17310967
Now go back and follow the conversion carefully.

[Anonymous No.17310980]

>>17310968
It means English as Second Language.
>if you have not understood my explaination.
I have, and I explained how your explanation is wrong. Please read my post again, more carefully this time.

[Anonymous No.17310988]

>>17310976
Actually this, but some people are just not able to grasp such complex thoughts.

Maybe he actually is stoned.

[Anonymous No.17310991]

>>17310976
I said I found all arguments in favor of determinism to be inadequate. You responded by saying an argument need only be sufficient, not adequate. Ok, I asked you to provide such an argument. You responded with "a leads to b and b leads to c". Do I really need to explain to you again how that's not an argument for determinism? Are you genuinely retarded?

[Anonymous No.17310997]

>>17310988
What the fuck? Are you actually taking his side? How the fuck is "a leads to b and b leads to c" an argument for determinism???? Jesus Christ....

[Anonymous No.17311006]

>>17309597
>Almost all great leaders believe in fate, not free will.
The problem is that most people ,who believe in fate, associate some metaphysical component to it.

[Anonymous No.17311014]

>>17310980
>I have, and I explained how your explanation is wrong. Please read my post again, more carefully this time.

My english is good enough to see that you failed at the very first step of my explanation.

Explaining to you why you did is too much to write. I am so very sorry you are this way!

This is the first time I use ngmi unironically. But I really fear that you are ngmi.

[Anonymous No.17311021]

>>17310991
How that isn't an argument for determinism?

[Anonymous No.17311028]

>>17310997
It is a sufficient argument for determinism which excludes the possibility of a doubt.

Not even trolling.

[Anonymous No.17311032]

>>17310214
Randomness doesn't exist. And even if it did, it will never be demonstrated. That would be a paradox in and of itself.

The same thing for infinities.

[Anonymous No.17311035]

>>17311014
Ok. I hope you will look back, think about it a little bit more and realize your mistake. Until then, it's clear that you refuse to genuinely engage, so all I can say is have a nice day!

[Anonymous No.17311039]

>>17310991
First off all that wasn't me.

[Anonymous No.17311046]

>>17311021
>>17311028
It's actually a sufficient argument for free will that excludes the possibility of a doubt.

[Anonymous No.17311056]

>>17311035
To you too.

But I am saying that philosophy maybe just isn't for you.

[Anonymous No.17311075]

>>17311035
Also why did you gave up trying to understand determinism so soon? You could just have asked me nicely to explain it easier for you to follow.

[Anonymous No.17311094]

>>17311039
Clearly you're very angry that you didn't have a response to my counterargument. It's ok, not everyone can win all the time. You should view this as an opportunity to learn, and as I said, there's no shame in that.
This is how one becomes better at philosophy: by challenging their views and seeing their mistakes.

[Anonymous No.17311110]

>>17311094
No that literally wasnt me.

[Anonymous No.17311111]

>>17311075
>Explaining to you why you did [misunderstand me] is too much to write
I thought you were not interested in engaging? Did you change your mind?

[Anonymous No.17311120]

>>17311110
Sorry you're right.
>>17311094
was meant for
>>17311056

[Anonymous No.17311142]

>>17303155
God is easily the worst concept, evolved far more terrifying than mere determinism

[Anonymous No.17311149]

>>17311111
That depends if you are able to be willing to admit that you just have not understood my explaination in sufficient depth.

I have looked at your arguments, they don't only miss the point, they are also wrong. The only thing I can deduce from them is that you have in fact not understood determinism at all.

[Anonymous No.17311156]

>>17311142
Kind of true though lol

[Anonymous No.17311183]

>>17311142
Indeed, it's determinism mixed with a torture machine universe designed by an awful deity.

[Anonymous No.17311185]

>>17311149
>That depends if you are able to be willing to admit that you just have not understood my explaination in sufficient depth.
Oh I'm completely willing to admit that. This is why I asked you to explain what I misunderstood, which you refused.
It's all fine and well if you think I'm wrong, but unless you're willing to explain how the discussion is useless.

[Anonymous No.17311191]

>>17311183
Predestination.

[Anonymous No.17311211]

>>17311185
>but unless you're willing to explain how the discussion is useless.
Very true, even though I am now quite sure that you won't be able too i will try.

[Anonymous No.17311220]

>>17311142
>evolved far more terrifying than mere determinism
The fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous No.17311222]

>>17311142
This.

[Anonymous No.17311233]

>>17311211
I have to give it to you, you sure know how to skirt around the issue and talk about everything except what is relevant to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.17311283]

>>17310777
>This is a nice story that explains something. However, you being bored does not mean you will browse 4chan.

The causal chain is of course much more complex, which does not matter.

>There were times when you were bored but you didn't browse 4chan.

See above.

>This is impossible to do. I can try to come up with a nice story that begins from the creation of the universe and ends with my typing this post, but that's all it is, a nice story without being anything resembling a causal chain where one event necessarily entails the subsequent one.

The actual causal chain does exatly that, it was an explanation not more, the actual story is of course not knowable.

>These causal chains are relevant in day to day situations and help make sense of what's going on, but to go beyond that and assign some metaphysical significance to them needs more justification.

a leads to b and b leads to c, just more complex

[Anonymous No.17311311]

>>17311233
Ok, as a first step read this, entirely and carefully.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

[Anonymous No.17311375]

>>17311283
Just to make the whole thing clear, would you accept the following definition of a causal chain? A tree-like ordered set of events (leaving aside the ambiguities involved in this term) together with some physical conditions surrounding them such that for every event, the next event necessarily follows it. Is this something like you have in mind?
>the actual story is of course not knowable
And yet you think it exists. What are you reasons for thinking so?

[Anonymous No.17311382]

>>17311375
>What are you reasons for thinking so?
A priori knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17311398]

>>17311183
>>17311156
>>17311222
Atheists wiping their sweaty brow. Of course, they have no answer to Universalism or the futility of atheistic existence (aside from a faith in the superhumanity of science, something that has yet to be shown, not just "induced")

[Anonymous No.17311410]

>>17311375
>Just to make the whole thing clear, would you accept the following definition of a causal chain? A tree-like ordered set of events (leaving aside the ambiguities involved in this term) together with some physical conditions surrounding them such that for every event, the next event necessarily follows it. Is this something like you have in mind?

Thats like trying to explain nutella usigh toothpaste as an example for the texture. Yet you are getting closer.

[Anonymous No.17311416]

>>17311311
I'm already an incompatibilist. Why do you want me to read those arguments?

[Anonymous No.17311429]

>>17311398
>answer to Universalism or the futility of atheistic existence
Why would one try to find answers to metaphysical constructs?

[Anonymous No.17311437]

>>17311416
So you just need to understand determinism then?

[Anonymous No.17311438]

>>17311398
Contrary to what you may believe, not everyone wants to have an all-powerful dictator of existence, whom leads all aspects of reality and cannot be toppled
What is the point of living then?
We have a hard, hard ceiling above our heads, progress is futile.

[Anonymous No.17311467]

>>17311398
Why you are raging at them? They were programmed to act this way by the deity.

[Anonymous No.17311483]

>>17311467
And they will go to hell, as it was decided before they were born.

[Anonymous No.17311496]

>>17311483
Stop assuming their futures. You are not the deity.

[Anonymous No.17311506]

>>17311496
What do you know? Perhaps he is the deity.

[Anonymous No.17311514]

>>17311437
If I didn't understand determinism then it wouldn't make much sense for me to be an incompatibilist, now would it?

[Anonymous No.17311515]

>>17311142
>>17311156
>>17311183
>>17311191
>>17311220
>>17311222
>>17311398
>>17311429
>>17311438
>>17311483
>>17311496
Which fucking version?
Why do midwits use/hear the term "God" and always jump to christianity?

[Anonymous No.17311517]

>>17311496
Of course I cannot know that, but I am still 100% sure thats the case, the bible and not just the bible make this very clear.

[Anonymous No.17311526]

>>17311515
Because that is the only god that exists.

Easy question, next!

[Anonymous No.17311539]

>>17311514
Ok sorry, seems like I am talking to different i/lit/erates.

[Anonymous No.17311564]

Some behavioral anomalies have been observed in persons cultivating the habit of causal awareness. Increased aggressiveness, excessive compliance, and reduced helpfulness are reported. Critical assessment of one's own former conduct appeared abated.[24]

William James was an American pragmatist philosopher who coined the terms "soft determinist" and "hard determinist" in an influential essay titled "The Dilemma of Determinism".[25] He argued against determinism, holding that the important issue is not personal responsibility, but hope. He believed that thorough-going determinism leads either to a bleak pessimism or to a degenerate subjectivism in moral judgment. He proposed the way to escape the dilemma is to allow a role for chance. James was careful to explain that he would rather "debate about objects than words", which indicates he did not insist on saying that replacing determinism with a model including chance had to mean we had "free will."

The determinist would counter-argue that there is still reason for hope. Whether or not the universe is determined does not change the fact that the future is unknown, and might very well always be. From a naturalist point of view, a person's actions still play a role in the shape of that future. Founder and director of the Center of Naturalism, Thomas W. Clark, explains that humans are not merely the playthings of patterned, natural forces in the universe—but rather we are ourselves examples of those forces.[26] The deterministic view aligns our representations with the faculties and possibilities we actually possess but it should avoid misleading introspection. Admitting agents' dependence on a drastic background can enhance insight, moderate severity and spare unproductive suffering.[27] In so far as the mind comprehends universal necessity, the power of emotions is diminished.[28]

[Anonymous No.17311650]

>>17303931
Porn when?
>>17308778
This.
>>17310156
Because, what.

[Anonymous No.17311680]

>>17303155
What Oblivion mod?

[Anonymous No.17311732]

>>17311680
None?

[Anonymous No.17311740]

Solipsism

The idea that other minds don't exist is kind of scary when you think about it. You'd be truly alone and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.17311767]

>>17309439
Descartes popularized the idea of man as an atomized unit from which consciousness arises, the most disastrous idea in the history of human thought.

[Anonymous No.17311796]

>>17311767
Is true though.

Also that thought is much older.

>>17311740
Yes but thats just metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17311804]

>>17311767
Why? What's disastrous about it?

[Anonymous No.17312014]

>>17303155
That my mom might abandon me.

[Anonymous No.17312509]

>>17312014
why

[Anonymous No.17312708]

>>17304048
Yet I don't see you working on the Basilisk, nigger.

[Anonymous No.17312830]

>>17312708
kek
Iam right now!

[Anonymous No.17312844]

>>17303155
Free will, since it basically means you have no internal motivations and are programmed by your environment. You pick your personality from a menu, and you get punished if you make the wrong choice - of course you can help it, if you couldn't help it, then the powers that be wouldn't get to punish you.

[Anonymous No.17312854]

>>17312844
What's inhibiting your will, if it isn't totally free?