/lit/ - Literature

>>14732338
>constituting necessity
sounds like fluff if not outright false

>This is not a question of how empirically verifiable the premise is through our scientific tools.
Why is this so flowery? Could have just said "This is not an empirical question, but rather,..." instead of pretending I'd never heard this before.

>We may posit that a person has autonomy
Wow dude what a great initial premise to start off an argument for free will, not vague or heavy at all.

>So, why do we humans behave in the way we do?
Cut the first word of this and the previous two paragraphs and you'd be greatly improving this but doubling a 1/10 isn't putting you in the green. I feel like this is all just a test to see if people will still respond despite all the OP's rules.

>To begin this brevet but sound discourse, I would like to examine the nature of the mind.
Again, ornamental.