/lit/ - Literature

>>18200586
How naive are you that you think people are acting in their own self interest? Does that really describe the people you've met?

>>18200598
In general, I have a negative opinion of other people's intelligence. I genuinely believe they are pursuing what their perceived best interest.

>>18200586
This argument boils down to

>People choose what they choose to do.

If you equate acting in your best interest with choice, of course everyone is going to act in their best interest because you've already defined it as that. You've left no room for people to act otherwise. Your argument is tautological, and that's why you're a faggot OP. And not the cool sexy kind.

>>18200628
>If you equate acting in your best interest with choice
That's precisely the thing. It has been argued that when people have a best interest in view, they are still able to choose to pursue anything else other than that perceived interest. See >>18200598

>>18200586
You're right that free will is a meme, but not for the reason you've got there. We lack free will because every atom in our bodies are following a universal set of laws, meaning that everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is exactly what is supposed to happen. As for your quote, I've done plenty of shit not in my best interest. I regularly save wasps in my house when my best interest would be to kill them so they don't sting me later, I save them because I believe in the dignity of all creatures. But shit Iunno, read some shit and figure it out for yourself, if you've gotta ask if you have free will you might as well not.

>>18200707
>As for your quote, I've done plenty of shit not in my best interest. I regularly save wasps in my house when my best interest would be to kill them so they don't sting me later, I save them because I believe in the dignity of all creatures.
If it was in your best interest to kill them, then you would kill them. At the time, however, you felt that preserving the dignity of all creatures was more important than not being stung.

>>18200586
Oh boy its this thread again
I may as well take a crack at it, I have nothing else to do.
The inherent problem with this argument you put forth confirmed by >>18200604 is that there are 3 major doubts in regards to free will when looking at other peoples actions
1. You can not know at a certainty whether or not they even exist. This is of course the weakest of the 3, and its prudent to give the benefit of the doubt
2. You cannot know if they hold values that match or even resemble yours. I will give an example. Say for instance, someone wanted to refute no free will by jumping off a bridge. I cannot know if they hold winning that argument above their own life, so in your view, they could have been lying, didnt know what they really wanted, truly held winning the argument over their life, etc. It is impossible to know with certainty which choice they made was in their own subjective best interest
3. You cannot know if they experience awareness and self-awareness the way you do.
So to go looking for free will in other people, I think I have proved is a vain effort, given the compounding doubts explained above. (Theres probably some other ones I didn't think of)
Now to answer this for myself, I know I am aware of my surroundings, I can see a green hoodie in my room, I can feel hunger, etc. I am also self-aware, I am aware I am aware.
Now in the case of free will, let's use a rather simple argument. Let's say I have just eaten dinner, a rather large one, got a stomach cramp, and to aid digestion I want to walk 4 times around the neighborhood.
Now then, say I started walking, I am aware of the stomach cramps, aware of my effort of walking, and self aware that I am walking to alleviate the stomach cramps (in this case walking would be my best interest to alleviate the cramps) Now since I am self aware of the reason I am walking, I can stop if I choose to, which would contradict what my best interest was, getting rid of the cramps. I can even stop and go eat more, worsening the stomach cramp problem.
My argument is basically this >>18200628 but I had nothing else to do so I wanted to expand it
>>18200707
>everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is exactly what is supposed to happen
Thats a bold statement, do you have proof?

>>18200598
>How naive are you that you think people are acting in their own self interest?
He might be a tranny stirnerite that doesn't realize the implications of selfless acts being a result of "self-interest" as anything more than retarded sophistry.

>>18200870
>might be

>>18200885
He could just be a chronic masturbator crossboarder, they all hold on to egoism one way or another.

>>18200762
You said best interest, not what I felt. I gain nothing from keeping the wasp alive, but I do risk the chance of getting stung as well as the chance that it will multiply into more wasps.

>>18200824
No hard proof really just a theory. Way I see it is that if you believe there are laws of physics, whether they are fully understood or not, that means that everything that exists in the universe has been following those laws since the very beginning, and will continue to until the very end. Therefore anything that has happened or ever will happen turned out exactly as it was going to from the very beginning because it couldn't have happened any other way.

>>18200586
>people favor favorable choices
woweee. not even true by the way as a miserably depressed fag i often make horrible life decisions out of anxiety and self hatred. never heard of being your own worst enemy? of course not narcissistic faggot

>>18200586

I've never seen any satisfactory argument FOR it.

>>18200707
This is determinism which I’m pretty sure is not consistent with our current understanding of physics.

>>18200917
When you look back at those decisions, they seem to be horribly misguided. You wonder how you could have even made such terrible decisions in the first place. The answer is, your anxiety and anger warped your perception during those times, rendering you short-sighted and unable to effectively comprehend the situation. Nevertheless, you were still following your best perceived interests.

>>18200707
so i have to be the one to tell this guy to quit being a retard and kill the fucking wasps in his house? really? no one else has an issue with that?

>>18200934
don't tell me how i feel faggot

>>18200940
>he doesn't save wasps in his house
what are you even doing anon

>>18200934
read notes from the underground and mby dostojevski and nietzsche by sestov
focus on the glass palace

>>18200944
You lash out at me. Why? Because you view it as your best interest to lash out me. You've felt it to be your imperative that I recognise how much you dislike being probed. If that wasn't your perceived best interest, then you wouldn't have sent that post.

>>18200969
the poster above you is smarter than you and he is literally having a stoke. notes from the underground being as relateable as a horoscope is to a teenage girl disproves your entire gay thesis

>>18200586
You're ignorant.

>>18200969
>If that wasn't your perceived best interest, then you wouldn't have sent that post.
That’s the problem with the entire argument because you define ‘acting’ so that it’s impossible to act freely, rendering the discourse pointless. Here’s a argument against the existence of chairs: whenever you look at something and call it a chair, the atoms in it move so it becomes a different object and it’s not a chair anymore. Therefore, chairs don’t exist. Whoah, dude, I’m so smart for coming up with this. Most philosophy is useless wankery about definitions like that.

>>18200994
>as a horoscope is relatable to a teenage girl, the notes from the underground is relatable.
Go on, finish that thought: who finds notes from the underground relatable? You? I can see the connection; after all, the protagonist is a neurotic and a control freak, who threatens to rebel against the glass palace to prove his freedom. He later remarks, funnily enough, that the mathematician has already accounted for his desire to prove his freedom, that desire also being analogous to a mere mechanical interaction. What in that book disproves my thesis?

>>18201039
>you define ‘acting’ so that it’s impossible to act freely
That was my aim, yes.

>>18200999
>You're ignorant

>>18200931
Any further explanation? I'm always interested in expanding my understanding.
>>18200940
They're actually pretty docile for the most part. I usually catch them in a jar and put them outside but occasionally I give them a pinch of sugar and let them chill.

If time travel becomes becomes accessible in the future, would making a choice then travelling back and making a different one be proof that free will exists?

>>18200586
Do people act in their self-interest or in their self's interest? The former isn't tenable; the latter is a trivial tautology.

>>18200628
/thread

>>18200586
Neuroscience helps us understand our brains. We understand any other organ in the body to our benefit, without that understanding we limit ourselves to stagnation.

>>18201280
Not at all. You are still making a choice based on your recollection past (or future?) experiences.