[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 547 KB, 400x499, Headshot2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10644064 No.10644064 [Reply] [Original]

Pic unrelated.

Answer this: If I could take a blood sample from you and tell you what your political views are, how stupid would you feel about having devoted your life to a cause that is as logical having blue eyes or being Chinese? Would you reconsider your views?

---

FREE WILL is a tired topic of discussion, I know, especially because we operate under the illusion that it does and there aren't any real important implications either way.

If I said to you: "you're conservative because of a causal chain of events that you had no influence on" it would be meaningless in practical terms.

But now there is an evident causal link ... genetics -> behavioural traits -> political predisposition.

For example (hypothetical) gene 11p15 is responsible for making you highly deviant, and highly deviant people are usually liberal. Now repeat this with 5 others genes, adjust the value with your parents' income, and with some regression analysis the final value should be 99.98% accurate.

>> No.10644129

>>10644064
Not very. Politics interest me.
>Would you reconsider you views
Kek. Wouldn't you be able to tell me? Not more than I already do I'd say.

Still not /lit/. Saged. Next time /pol/ or /his/ please.

>> No.10644141

I don't value my political position because i reached them through free will, but because i think that they will result in the best possible outcome for my political community; to me, how i reached the conclusions are irrelevant, the outcome is what is important. Sure there are a lot of grey-areas in politics, but i still value these things regardless as to whether i was genetically determined to do so. It would be like discounting the social contract because i read it from Hobbes instead of inventing it myself.

>> No.10644271

>>10644129
This is 100% philosophy and has important implications, which if you can't see maybe you need to leave this board entirely and go read a book.

>> No.10644316

>>10644271
And philosophy belongs on /his/ unless directly discussing a philosophical literary work.
Maybe you need to read the rules.