greetings from /tg/

[Anonymous No.16090898]

So, /lit/. What do you choose?

[Anonymous No.16090908]

>>16090898
Leave and never post on our board again pleb

[Anonymous No.16090909]

don't care
won't read it

[Anonymous No.16090916]

>>16090898
Who knows

It's by far the most fun of choices, trust me

[Anonymous No.16090917]

i choose free will beacuse these wojaks are funny

[Anonymous No.16090924]

Free Will

[Anonymous No.16090931]

>>16090898
Unironically Compatibilism

[Anonymous No.16090984]

>>16090898
I choose you :)

[Anonymous No.16091010]

>>16090931
Same but I want to believe in Free Will so much bros. Its just really hard

[Anonymous No.16091040]

>>16091010
Idk i believe in Free Will. It's literally a chaos on Earth. It's such a complex chaos that last few generations of politicans absolutely don't have any thought on future. Only opportunistic way to solve problems. No vision. Simple natural catastrophe can change absolutely anything as much as one person can cause massive change. I believe in it. Im also a Christian so idk what the fuck is wrong with me.

[Anonymous No.16091043]

Combination of free will and "who knows."

We can only see and understand the world as determinate, and so naturally we are tempted to see ourselves as part of the world, and similarly determinate. But a perfectly determinate and mechanical world would have no need of a conscious subject constituting it, let alone constituting it in a manner that includes ideas of free will and its moral value.

The psychical is logically opposed to matter, and determinacy is the aspect of matter, so it follows that radical freedom is the aspect of the psychical. But even suspecting this abstractly, we still can't imagine freedom. It's impossible to imagine a "free act" at our present level of cognition. So we again lapse into the temptation of thorough determinism, and assume we must be mistaken.

Some people remain in that mindset indefinitely, or else they become so frustrated by the lack of a different answer that they become the "who cares?" guy. But some others are led, again and again, back to the mystery of: "but then why the freely willing, moral subject in the first place? Why the 'empty' idea of freedom? Why have the psychical at all, as distinct from the material and mechanistic? Why would a mechanical world have need of 'illusions', what would it mean for an unthinking machine to be 'deluded' about its own freedom?" This is the very definition of a "mystery" in the ancient hermetic sense, something that can't be comprehended by the mind but still exists for the mind, so that it pulls the mind out of its present conceptions and toward it, to somewhere higher than its present state. Freedom, or the impossible necessity of freedom, is the first and last mystery of the universe.

[Anonymous No.16091059]

>>16090898
Free will (pink Wojak variant)

[Anonymous No.16091694]

>>16091059
based

[Anonymous No.16091769]

Compatibilism through means of clinamen which are so common they render free will a definite reality
Alternatively
Free will through CI though I haven't actually read Kant yet and I'm basing this entirely on a single post I saw on a thread a little while ago

[Anonymous No.16091843]

>>16090898
"Who's Knows?"

That there possibly exists something vast and beautiful beyond our imagining gives me hope.

[Anonymous No.16091864]

>>16090898
I will never understood why critics of determinism say that ambition is pointless when it's exactly the other way around.

[Anonymous No.16092194]

Is there any book that "impersonates" the "Who Knows?" perspective?

[Anonymous No.16092274]

>>16090898
Somewhere between compatibalism and "who knows?" This material reality is filtered between the biology of our perception and the amalgum of our mind and soul, the cognition presents to us a platter of dilemmas and our spirit treats each one as a binary decision: either denial or acquiescence. I think our decision on each of these things recursively affects our souls and thus alters how we are inclined to act in the pursuit of desires in the future.

[Anonymous No.16092285]

My brain and my body are going to need to figure out what they both like before worrying about something like this.

[Anonymous No.16092307]

>>16090908
>a roastie
fuck off nigger retard faggot pleb

[Anonymous No.16092338]

>>16090898
It makes no sense to oppose free will and determinism. You can have imminent freedom (which is nothing but the feeling of desire having control over a process) while not having transcendent freedom (which doesn't even make sense as a concept, since you cannot breach the rules of the substance you are).

[Anonymous No.16092459]

>>16092338
>while not having transcendent freedom (which doesn't even make sense as a concept, since you cannot breach the rules of the substance you are).
That's the exact problem.

[Anonymous No.16092554]

>>16090898
It’s all 5

[Anonymous No.16092889]

>>16092194
no. under "who knows" all books and language are saying the same thing, and are all saying nothing, both, and neither. wittgenstein comes the closest to impersonating it to me, tractatus logico-philosophicus and/or philosophical investigations

[Anonymous No.16092914]

>>16092554
someone gets it

[Anonymous No.16093274]

Can someone explain to me what the actual difference between determinism and free will to me? What actual difference does it make? If someone chooses to make a decision, or they were predetermined to make the decision and the choice was an illusion, what actually changes? You're not free from consequence either way, responsibility is still deferred the same way. Murdering with free will puts you in prison because you're choosing to be a murderer, murdering because you're fated to puts you in prison because you're determined a murderer.

[Anonymous No.16093357]

>>16092307
>not recognizing plath immediately
>not understanding the meaning of this meme immediately
absolutely pathetic. leave and never come back brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16093381]

>>16093274
nobody can even define free will apart from compatibilists who are largely just playing word games. The difference is whether we should 'blame' people, which also doesn't really mean much. I guess you can have more pity for the murderer, but as you say you still have to jail or execute him.

[Anonymous No.16093633]

>>16093381
this

[Anonymous No.16093767]

>>16093381
That's pretty much what I thought, but it seemed so obvious I figured I was missing something critical. This subject just seems stupid.

[Anonymous No.16094094]

>>16090898
shit meme

[Anonymous No.16094218]

>>16092285
Titties
and
Vegetables
There, that wasn't so hard.

[Anonymous No.16095168]

>>16093381
>nobody can even define free will apart from compatibilists who are largely just playing word games.
You can say the same exact shit about determinism though.

[Anonymous No.16095242]

I've chosen "who knows" since my late childhood.