/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21973425]

Did Dosto refuted determinism in notes from the underground
If so, how? Im not really convinced, am I just filtered

[Anonymous No.21973431]

>>21973425
The illusion of freewill is proof of freewill.

[Anonymous No.21973458]

>>21973425
It's not worth refuting. Dostchad wouldn't spend his valuable time on that, but I'll do it.
>huemans make up some causal theory of the world
>From A follows B, from which follows C etc.
>This is the absolute truth b-because... It-It just is, ok? Stop asking questions.
>Free will can't be explained by this model.
>Determicucks insist that this must mean free will doesn't exist, despite every atom of their bodies telling them otherwise at all times
Existence of free will is a higher order truth. When your model of the world can't explain free will, it's not free will that is wrong but your model.

[Anonymous No.21973528]

>>21973431
>>21973458
Pretty much this.
Determinism can be answered by, "So what?"
It ultimately makes no difference if the world is deterministic or not, since we perceive ourselves to have free will.
Even Descartes acknowledged that there isn't a point to the question, since freedom of the will is self-evident by the act of thought.
I think therefore I am, and I can choose to think therefore I am free.

[Anonymous No.21973533]

>>21973528
Pure cope

[Anonymous No.21973548]

>>21973533
>*beep* *boop* I am a bot

[Anonymous No.21973557]

>>21973528
I think your thoughts are just like debugging process in programming, you are becoming aware of variables and flow but you cant change it

[Anonymous No.21973561]

>>21973425
It cant be disputed. Its simple mathematics. The same way you can predict the trajectory of a projectile given the strength and direction of the initial force, you can also predict the trajectory of every existing particle back to the beginning of time and forever into the future. We are merely pool balls still rolling after the break.

[Anonymous No.21973688]

>>21973561
Dosto was aware of this, its literally written in the book, yet he somehow disapproves it
Why?

[Anonymous No.21973699]

>>21973688
I don't grant that he disproved it. Read the first sentence.

[Anonymous No.21973711]

>>21973699
That his character is spiteful man? So people are irrational and sometimes do things because of spite? I fail to connect that with the free will question, maybe Im just dumb

[Anonymous No.21973766]

>>21973528
After reading philosophy, learn medicine and only then try to refute determinism.

[Anonymous No.21973806]

>>21973711
What the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.21973811]

Dostoevsky never refuted nor made a compelling argument for anything. He's one of the dumbest and most philosophically shallow individuals to ever become a successful writer.

[Anonymous No.21973823]

>>21973431
Yeah not really.
>>21973528
>I can choose to think
Can you though? The whole premise of the brain is that thoughts just "happen", you don't conjure them out of thin air, in fact they happen to you and you have no say in it whatsoever.
>>21973561
What about quantum uncertainty though? Surely the universe ought to be a bit more complex than that.

[Anonymous No.21973867]

>>21973806
Oh you were talking about your post and not the book itself

[Anonymous No.21973876]

>>21973823
I like this post
Lack of free will doesnt mean every event is already determined

[Anonymous No.21973884]

>>21973528
Freedom is a paradox. We are determined by nature, thus our feelings of freedom are also determined. The freedom of the will has already been determined.

[Anonymous No.21973886]

There's no free will because we'll all die.
Can you free will yourself to immortality?

[Anonymous No.21973896]

>>21973823
> The whole premise of the brain is that thoughts just "happen", you don't conjure them out of thin air
Exactly, you must have some prior knowledge (sensorial input) in order to form new thoughts. One’s actions and thoughts are derived from other phenomena.

[Anonymous No.21973924]

>>21973533
Grow up, coper. Your camp is the one that seeks to absolve yourself of any real need to do a thing.
>>21973557
That's a pretty arbitrarily autistic way to view cognition, to be quite honest.
>>21973823
>Can you though?
Yes.
>The whole premise of the brain is that thoughts just "happen", you don't conjure them out of thin air, in fact they happen to you and you have no say in it whatsoever.
And why is that, because you're saying so?
I choose to disagree.
Thinking with deliberate intention is something you are capable of, and choices can be made by you as well.
Do people sometimes experience feelings and impulses which did not come from deliberate thought?
Of course, I won't deny that.
At the same time though: the only people that feign ignorance to their capability for conscious thought and decision are those that celebrate their own wretchedness and seek to rend themselves further from all responsibility.

[Anonymous No.21973945]

>>21973924
>Thinking with deliberate intention is something you are capable of, and choices can be made by you as well.

And why is that, because you're saying so?

[Anonymous No.21974037]

>>21973924
I fundamentally disagree but as there is no clear way to overcome the subjective impression of our own senses, there is no way either to tell if either one of us is right. However your last remark is quite astute as it's probably best for society at large to keep believing in free will, for the contrary leads to many problems indeed.

[Anonymous No.21974078]

>>21973945
Because I deliberately thought so, yes.
>>21974037
Then I'll choose to end things here amicably with you, though we may disagree.
I shall also now choose to not respond further in this thread, for I feel I have said enough. I will read responses to my posts any others may write, but this one is the last I shall write myself and that choice is definite.
I hope this conversation has provided some food for thought to anyone reading it.

[Anonymous No.21974143]

>>21973884
"We" ARE "nature", you dumb nigger. This idea that we have immaterial souls is the most harmful idea ever invented.

[Anonymous No.21974320]

After many years of reading philosophy I dont know what to believe in anymore.. I feel normies are much more happier and confident than me, Im just getting more and more confused

[Anonymous No.21974854]

>>21974320
>stay away from philosophy.
>Read biology, physics and chemistry books.
>philosophy (like theology and capitalism) is a fairytale / a story people tell themselves

[Anonymous No.21974869]

>>21974037
>it's probably best for society at large to keep believing in free will
Sure.. You are right.. It is better for society to take the blue pill.

[Anonymous No.21974882]

>>21974143
Ahrimanic post, do not listen to this bugman.

[Anonymous No.21974996]

free will vs determinism is the most pointless debate ever because even if you don't believe in free will you still have to act under the guise of free will

[Anonymous No.21975026]

>>21973425
it's not about determinism; it's about utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.21975069]

determinism is taken as an established fact that must be acted to be refuted or dislodged from, but this isn't the case. causality doesn't prove that each persons decisions are predetermined by a causal chain, it merely states that things have, as a part of their identity, particular characteristics that can be counted on; thus causality. the human mind is not to be taken as causal on this premise; we cannot yet state this, as we see that the greatest extent that one might reduce a persons decision-making faculty to is 'they just decided'--it's a tautology. that tells us, if anything, human being have free will. it can only be taken as a theory that causality extends to the extent of the human decision-making process.

i'm happy to see a real discussion of notes form underground and not the usual trite nonsense people usually say ("omg, he's just like me!")

[Anonymous No.21975893]

>>21975026
Its really about both

[Anonymous No.21975938]

>>21975893
no it isn't. the underground man is refuting the utopian's vision of a perfect society by reference to the human drive to be self-determinant. he maintains this assertion even on the basis of determinism. to say it's about both is a gross disregard for the structure of his argument; they are not being discussed on an equal basis, it is only used to make his point about the nature of man.

[Anonymous No.21977501]

I don't care about any fancy high-falutin' philosophy any more. I will not perish like a dog.
Simple as

[Anonymous No.21977521]

>>21973528
But most of the time you act like you don't have free will, you're immersed in something and it is not up to you when you cease to be.

[Anonymous No.21977953]

I dont understand why people say the queation of free will doesnt matter, its the most important question in the whole universe for me

[Anonymous No.21977981]

>>21973867
wait, NTA, but did you just literally open the book at look at the first sentence?

holy shit, made my day

[Anonymous No.21977994]

>>21977981
It makes sense that he would make that inference:
>I don't grant that he disproved it. Read the first sentence.
Should've said "read my first sentence." In this context, "the" first sentence and "he" can be assumed to refer to UM and Dosto.

[Anonymous No.21978000]

>>21977981
Im the anon you are talking about, I didnt literally open the book, its one of the most famous openings of all time
Also Im esl, maybe thats why I misunderstood

[Anonymous No.21978020]

>>21973561
you cannot predict the futute though, with there is a growing amount of information in the universe due to the second law of thermodynamics, you cannot deduce more information from less, the position of an electron is undetermined until observed you cannot predict it

[Anonymous No.21978128]

>>21977994
yeah it absolutely does, i didn't mean to be mean, just found it funny

>>21978000
>I didnt literally open the book, its one of the most famous openings of all time
my bad, i never touched the book