/lit/ - Literature

>>21007793
>freedom's truth doesn't depend on whether your actions are objectively caused by other things. It's not that you can't control your desires, you are your desires, there is no self that would do something different if it was free.

I think you have a thoughtful take, but i'd like you to respond to my second paragraph using this conception of free will. I think this conception leads to at best a predestinationist, calvinist model of damnation, which was the model of my last significant christian influence, and was my last version of christianity before i abandoned religion 11 years ago. This is a very rare and narrow version of chirstianity and i can't abandon the suspicion that normal christians have some specific conception of free will which is both rational and compatible with the vision of god described in that 2nd paragraph, and i just haven't heard it yet.

>>17765736
Except JFK didn’t want to back off Castro nor did he want to deescalate Vietnam. In fact he authorised the possibility of a second invasion of Cuba this time with explicit military aid.

JFK being a right wing coup orchestrated by the Dulles brothers, LBJ and Westmoreland hinges completely on JFK being a liberal dove which he absolutely was not. JFK was a cold warrior through and through.