On Free will

[Anonymous No.17283397]

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.

[Anonymous No.17283405]

>>17283397
Any book about this?

[Anonymous No.17283419]

>>17283397
is there such thing as anime thot posting?

[Anonymous No.17283426]

>>17283397
Because there are scales of free will dummy. No one says free will exist to the point you can influence the laws to universe to your liking

[Anonymous No.17283438]

>>17283397
the most important things in life, are always left to the individual to choose.

[Anonymous No.17283472]

>>17283426
Will does not mean what you think it means; you are confusing will with power outright.

>>17283438
What does an individual choose between?

[Anonymous No.17283552]

>>17283397
>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.
You are clinically retarded, people do things contrary to their interests all the time. Check gamblers, alcoholics, drug addicts, porn addicts, sex addicts, anything addicts etc. "Rational self interest" is a fucking meme.

[Anonymous No.17283636]

>>17283552
From our perspectives, we can see how gambling, drugs, alcohol and so on are detrimental to an individuals wellbeing. Here's the kicker, the addicts are unable to see what we see, and so as a consequence of their shortsightedness, really do perceive the thrill of gambling, drugs, alcohol and so on as their best interest. That is why I specify the following: that a man only pursues what he PERCEIVES as his best interest, regardless of where his ACTUAL interests lie. In short, you are the retard and the one who should visit a clinic.

[Anonymous No.17283650]

>>17283397
coomer posting need to be banned

[Anonymous No.17283684]

>>17283397
>>17283405
>>17283426
>>17283438

“Cf. Spinoza, Ep. 58, IV/266: “This is that human freedom which all men boast that they have, and which consists only in this, that they are conscious of their appetites, but ignorant of the causes by which they are determined.” ”

[Anonymous No.17283700]

>>17283636
>Here's the kicker, the addicts are unable to see what we see
False. I refer you to NoFap etc. People very often deliberately do things that they would prefer not to do because of irrational instinctual compulsions.

[Anonymous No.17283817]

>>17283700
and environmental factors, such as upbringing, moral disposition, genetic sex drive, etc lead you do the "choice" that you make.
We feel free, but at the end of the day even our thoughts are a result of who we are and who we are is a result of our environment.
All that was, is and will be is an endless chain of events and conditions.
Only a godly creature could be separate from this chain as it would require action without cause which is impossible when you are already part of this chain.

[Anonymous No.17283843]

Determinism is not a scientific fact, in fact all current theories of physics completely reject it.

Having said that, the Western conception of Free Will is a copout mean to justify certain theological positions, it's not actually held as a coherent philosophical position. To put it another way, you hold this view to justify holding other views.

[Anonymous No.17283847]

>>17283700
Are you talking about those services which aim to assist addicts by demonstrating the harmful consequences of their addictions? That is all well and good, but the addicts must first be exposed to those materials before they can see them, and they must believe the statements in those websites to be, first of all, truthful and, secondly, of substantial merit before they will take them to heart. But it is besides the point; your average addict will not even know about these services, much less admit that they are in need of these services. In what way, then, can we say that they can see as much as we can? And as for your second point, you are conflating a person's preference at their peak awareness with their preference at all times. Put it this way, the alcoholic who is sober may acknowledge the aforementioned harm of his alcoholism, and will swear to stay off it forever, as all noble alcoholics promise to do. Later, however, he would be so compelled by the pains of withdrawal to return to the drink, all the while forgetting those lessons learned and promises made a while ago. Finally, in his drunken state, the man has lost his wits completely, and no longer sees the consequences of his actions beyond its immediacy, and so behaves in a shameless and loutish manner. The key factors in all these scenarios - that the alcoholic is always following what he perceives to be his best interests, and that these interests, or preferences, change according to his condition (abstinence -> relief -> hedonistic pleasure). In any case, you are actually agreeing with me about free will, since a man who is tyrannised by irrational instinctual compulsions could by no means be considered as in possession of a free will.

[Anonymous No.17283873]

it depends if you're looking at a microscopic way or macroscopic
yes, there is technically no free will since everything you do is purely an outcome of material interactions
yet, it can still be considered as "free will" in a macroscopic way. You still have a choice to drink beer or water, even if the result will be influenced by matter. It's "the same" as if it was rather influenced by an "holy spirit". Besides, you cannot use determinism to justify illegal or unethical/immoral actions. Society considers free will because it's whole justice system is literally built on it

[Anonymous No.17283876]

>>17283817
>Only a godly creature could be separate from this chain as it would require action without cause which is impossible when you are already part of this chain.
This is actually what a lot of ancient spiritual traditions revolved around, but yes, I agree with you for the most part. "Rational self interest" is total bullshit, but environmental conditioning does play a huge part in determining the course of our lives.
>>17283847
You're thinking like some medical retard. I'll simplify it for you.
>guy doesn't want to fap for whatever reason - time, shame, religion, morality etc
>guy sees hot girl
>guy faps
>post-nut clarity sets in and guy feels bad
As to this:
>The key factors in all these scenarios - that the alcoholic is always following what he perceives to be his best interests, and that these interests, or preferences, change according to his condition (abstinence -> relief -> hedonistic pleasure).
This is a completely bankrupt way of thinking. If we take this view, no "rational self interest" can even be considered to exist, since neither rationality or self interest are given any permanence or consistency in your definition.
>In any case, you are actually agreeing with me about free will, since a man who is tyrannised by irrational instinctual compulsions could by no means be considered as in possession of a free will.
I generally agree that free will is problematic, but I completely disagree with your reasoning. I do, however, believe that certain practices can lead to the development of a genuine and completely free will. The process, however, is arduous.

[Anonymous No.17284031]

>>17283876
Very convenient of you to forget some step:
>guy doesn't want to fap for whatever reason - time, shame, religion, morality etc
>guy sees hot girl
-
>the hot girl now takes center stage forgets about time, morality and whatnot
-
>guy faps
>post-nut clarity sets in, hot girl fades away, guy remembers time, morality and whatnot, guy feels bad
Even the phrase 'post-nut clarity' suggests that the guy must've previously been in a state of obscurity, having been intoxicated by the wiles of woman. For as long as a guy concentrated on religion or whatever, he would not have been compelled to masturbate, if these things do not condone it, of course.
> If we take this view, no "rational self interest" can even be considered to exist, since neither rationality or self interest are given any permanence or consistency in your definition
You have appraised my point exactly, there does not exist anything objective like a rational self interest, only an authority which asserts itself in the individual's mind and calls itself the 'rational self interest'. Man is the measure of all things, and the quality of the measure is linked to the quality of man himself.

[Anonymous No.17284082]

>>17283397
explain drug abuse then, anon.
druggies know abusing heroin isn't in their best interest, yet they still shoot up.

[Anonymous No.17284098]

>>17283397
>determinism
>scientific fact
lmao like science could find anything else

[Anonymous No.17284118]

>>17283472
>What does an individual choose between?
Chicken or beef!

[Anonymous No.17284130]

>>17283397
Kant already proved it, get with the times

[Anonymous No.17284133]

>>17284082
Already did, refer to >>17283847
tl:dr they are forgetful

[Anonymous No.17284184]

>>17284031
>You have appraised my point exactly, there does not exist anything objective like a rational self interest, only an authority which asserts itself in the individual's mind and calls itself the 'rational self interest'. Man is the measure of all things, and the quality of the measure is linked to the quality of man himself.
This is the cheapest cop-out you could have possibly come up with. Let's dissect this statement, shall we?
>An authority (something) asserts itself in the mind of the human being. This is not necessarily the will or anything subjective of the like, but can be considered an impersonal force.
>This thing, which is subject to external stimuli, can displace and replace the focus of attention at its discretion.
>Even though this makes consciousness disjointed and this thing makes judgements disconnected from the greater context of human life, including judgements that are deliberately harmful, somehow this thing is "rational self interest".
How come? Why should it be a "rational" rather than "instinctive" self interest, then? In fact, why should it be self interest at all when it can be deliberately harmful? Wouldn't it be far more accurate to call it "instinctive obsession" or something of the like? I see zero justification why the words "rational" or "self interest" should be used.

[Anonymous No.17284227]

I choose to post in this thread despite the fact that it is not in my best interest to do so.

[Anonymous No.17284259]

>>17284227
You did not choose your will, neither did you choose to think, you are only tangled in an awareness that forms the illusion of taking part in the process

[Anonymous No.17284267]

>The determinist PERCEIVE shitposter is a CSMidwit
makes sense

[Anonymous No.17284277]

>>17283397
Read Bergson's "Time and Free Will" if you want to challenge your philosophically juvenile conception of freedom/causality.

[Anonymous No.17284308]

>>17283873
When man is faced with a so-called choice, like one between beer and water, he will deliberate on the choice for whatever time he allots to the choice until the choice disappears, and it becomes foolish, in his head, to not choose beer over water or water over beer. The choice itself is fake and illusory. So are, infact, laws, ethics and morality.

>>17284184
Impressive, anon. You really did a number on that strawman. I guess now my proposition must now be re-evaluated in light of these scathing remarks. Fucking moron, I've never said anything about it being a rational self interest, or an instinctive self interest, or as self interest at all, nor have i said that a man pursues what IS in his interest at all. These are all things that you have introduced into the conversation, because you wish to pigeon-hole me into whatever philosophical arguments you've heard before.

Let us start from the beginning: a man only pursues what he PERCEIVES as his best interest. Not to be confused with pursuing his self-interest, or his rational interest, or any other terminology you would like to jam in. And most importantly, not to be confused with pursuing his ACTUAL interest.

[Anonymous No.17284387]

>>17284277
This guy's been shitposting with his inane non-arguments about "perception" since ages, you're not gonna change that, all he seeks is some kind of fleeting sense of superiority or victory on this board by categorically denying anything that challenges his stupidity, talking to a brick is a better use of your time.

[Anonymous No.17284418]

>>17284387
You are an asshat.

[Anonymous No.17284425]

>>17284259
Prove it

[Anonymous No.17284433]

>>17283397
Don't come back until you've read this. (This applies to everyone in this thread)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[Anonymous No.17284457]

>>17284308
>Impressive, anon. You really did a number on that strawman. I guess now my proposition must now be re-evaluated in light of these scathing remarks. Fucking moron, I've never said anything about it being a rational self interest, or an instinctive self interest, or as self interest at all, nor have i said that a man pursues what IS in his interest at all. These are all things that you have introduced into the conversation, because you wish to pigeon-hole me into whatever philosophical arguments you've heard before.
Is this pseudshit not in your OP, anon?
>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
>Let us start from the beginning: a man only pursues what he PERCEIVES as his best interest.
Define "his". Perhaps my "strawman" was way too generous. In my post here >>17284184 I already examined the impossibility of claiming that this "perception" belongs to the person - it would be more accurate to say that the person belongs to it rather than vice versa, since its judgements are completely context and will independent. We are not dealing merely with perception at all, however - we are also dealing with action, so it would be more accurate to refer to this as an impulse or compulsion rather than "perception". This impulse, however, due to its involuntary nature, is completely antithetical to the idea of "deciding" anything, much less "deciding to act according to or against the perceived best course of action". This is why you are full of shit. To say that man is slave to "the perception of best interest" is ridiculously stupid, gross overreach - the idea, put in such terms, makes zero sense. Rather, from the anti-free will perspective, it would be more infinitely accurate to say that man is simply slave to causality, with no implication of "good" or "bad", "perception" or "action".

[Anonymous No.17284470]

>>17283397
>a man cannot ever decide against the perceived best course of action
Your perceived best course of action is pissing away your finite time on God's earth baiting for (You)s with an anime whore and a handful of misunderstood philosophical platitudes?
Surely there are better things for you to be doing, and it is your free will that allows you to eschew them and while away your hours on frivolous bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17284495]

>>17284470
holy fuck, btfo'd EMPIRICALLY
/thread

[Anonymous No.17284511]

>>17283636
No they do not
Most of them acknowledge the harm of addiction
In fact, most breaks from addiction are spontaneous, occuring from... Thought

[Anonymous No.17284528]

>>17283438

No matter how much you wish for it you will never not be a nigger.

>>17283843

The ridiculous thing is of course that free will/determinism is a debate that attracts nothing but the most idiotic of pseudointellectuals. The question cannot be conclusively resolved for one but more importantly it's fucking irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17284533]

>>17284418
Yes, this too is proof of having free will.

[Anonymous No.17284664]

>>17284457
Gish-gallop

[Anonymous No.17284681]

>>17283397
determinism is pragmatically useless

[Anonymous No.17284689]

>>17284681
READ SPINOZA

[Anonymous No.17284699]

>>17284689
i choose not to

[Anonymous No.17284763]

>>17283397
You act and treat people as if free will exists. The legal system is based on the assumption that free will exists. Physical reality is too complicated for you to glean accurate predictions - in part due to the uncertainty principle. Suppose there is no free will, now what are you going to do? And then what? Why?

[Anonymous No.17284788]

>>17283397
This debate is totally meaningless. Human are designed to act according to the illusion of free will. Even if science proves fee will or determinism it still changes nothing the way we live our day to day life.
How can a person believe in determinism without losing his mind or killing himself?

Also every free will/determinism debate is meaningless after Schopenhauer's genius essay "On The Freedom of Will."

[Anonymous No.17284801]

>>17283438
source: trust me bro

[Anonymous No.17284818]

>>17284788
Actually, a man can do what he chooses, but not want what he chooses.

You want what you want.

[Anonymous No.17284917]

>>17284387
I'm certain these threads are just bait, but nonetheless drop recommendations in case some unknowing soul happens to take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.17284934]

>>17283397

[Anonymous No.17284945]

>>17284934
he has good taste though

[Anonymous No.17284966]

>>17284818
oh no no no no

[Anonymous No.17285107]

>>17284934
she is relevant to the question of free will though. If you havent read the manga it is understandable that you think like you think

[Anonymous No.17285238]

>>17284664
Cope.
>>17284699
Based.

[Anonymous No.17285282]

>>17283843
Could you elaborate on what the current scientific thinking is?

[Anonymous No.17286100]

>>17283397
>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.

Yes, he can, see: >>17284511. Junkies hate drugs more than anyone else. Also, this argument sucks regardless. What would it prove one way or another? I can just as easily say that a man unable to decide against the perceived best course of action actually proves free will, and I would be wrong. Throw it in the trash.

[Anonymous No.17287366]

>OP is chainsawmanfag
>people expect him to make a good point