/lit/ - Literature

>>21420622
ma ballz

I've never heard any satisfactory arguments against the following: that man could not be endowed with the free will, for he only pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests.

Why bother with neuroscience, evolution or determinism, when this statement alone blows any notion about choice away with the winds? There must be some point or remark that I've missed or otherwise have not been perceptive of.

>>17715205
and you're a nigger. so what? do you have a decent reason for being here and wasting your time?

take your pills alice

We are all familiar with the fable of Heaven and Hell, if only because it has been bashed over our heads the last few days in this board. However, since a man's will is simply not his at all, it being determined by external entities, and since he as a result commits sin purely by accident and out of ignorance, for even Good and Evil was considered an object of knowledge (coming out of a tree), it can only be seen as vainglorious and cruel of the Lord to condemn us to eternal damnation for a situation completely out of our control.

Note that entrances to heaven and hell are determined by the condition of the soul in the individual or whatever, and therefore can be seen as a type of response to that condition. It has been dictated by the lord that those who have sinned will go to hell and suffer eternal damnation, and, contrariwise, those who have never sinned will reach heaven and eternal salvation. so we need to ask the question; what does the Lord hope to achieve through Heaven and Hell? Justice as being defined as doing good to dogooders and harm to wrongdoers has already been refuted by Plato in the first book of his Republic. Hell, clearly, cannot make people more Just, just as much as kicking a dog can teach him to stand, and heaven can't make people more Just either, for heaven is already only accessible to the perfectly Just. Their existences are completely redundant.

Of course, I don't posit any of this forcefully and dogmatically. I am simply voicing my ideas about this topic.

>>17630107
>>17630501
>>17630527
>>17630842
Free will doesn't exist.

>Determinism was developed by the Greek philosophers during the 7th and 6th centuries BC by the Pre-socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Leucippus, later Plato and Aristotle, and mainly by the Stoics. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.
Seriously, you would think that the topic would be settled ages ago.

there is too much larping going on around this board. People pretending to will freely and to oppose their own perceived interests but you don't fool me. This is the thread for those who aren't pseud enough to delude themselves. This is the thread to discuss literature pertaining to the embrace of determinism.
WARNING: wholesomeness ahead, pseud copeheads and denialists beware.

>>17312114
People only follow their best perceived interests. How can that be considered free will?

I simply do not understand those people who believe in Free will. Ignoring determinism and other scientific facts, surely the understanding that a man only pursues what he perceives as his best interest blows any concept of freedom the fuck out, for a man cannot ever decide against the perceived best course of action. There has to be some misunderstanding on my part, for I cannot see why this topic is still being debated.

I've never heard any satisfactory arguments against the following: that man could not be endowed with the free will, for he only pursues that which he perceives to be in his best interests.

Why bother with neuroscience, evolution or determinism, when this statement alone blows any notion about choice away with the winds? There must be some point or remark that I've missed or otherwise have not been perceptive of.