/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2657373]

Help me /lit/. I like postmodernism for the most part, the argument that our conception of everything -including scientific truth- is determined by social circumstances, history, experience, background etc is very convincing to my. My problem then, is not so much that there is no absolute truth or reality, but more about what there is left of the autonomy and freewill of people.

Are there any philosophers who puts up a convincing defense against this? I remember Sartre is a defender of the absolute freewill, does he has something to say of it against light of postmodernism? Maybe you guys can give me some references if possible?

[Anonymous No.2657375]

>>2657373
>My problem then, is not so much that there is no absolute truth or reality, but more about what there is left of the autonomy and freewill of people.
OK, I mad.
Get out.

[Anonymous No.2657379]

>>2657375
This. Braindead concept. Move onto free will from emergence in physics if you want something to cling onto.

[Anonymous No.2657381]

>>2657375

care to elaborate why you mad?

[Anonymous No.2657385]

My guess is that you should read Zygmunt Bauman, any of his "Liquid" stuff. Love, modernity and fear i guess would be great places to star from.

You won't get an answer for you question, but you'll try to understand better the question itself. You're just looking for stability inside late-modernism society and that's missing the point.

[Anonymous No.2657387]

>>2657375
>>2657379
>>2657385

Sorry I'm still sort of new to this concept, but I guess there is really no convincing defense then?

And thanks for the Bauman reference, definitely gonna check that out.

[Anonymous No.2657401]

You actually do not believe in the scientific method. Can you explain to me how you are less ignorant than a fundamentalist Christian?

[Anonymous No.2657405]

>>2657387

In /lit/ you will find mostly asshats who pretend they know what they're talking about by shouting down people that they don't think are falling in line with their groupthink.

[Anonymous No.2657407]

>>2657379
>free will from emergence in physics

that kind of shit is infinitely more crackpot nonsense than anything philosophy has to offer

[Anonymous No.2657408]

>>2657379

show us some citation, wise one.

[Anonymous No.2657409]

>>2657373
As I remember, and I might remember worng it's a long time since I read Sartre, he does not defend free will, but that we have the full responsibility of our actions, regardless of our will is free or not.

[Anonymous No.2657413]

>>2657409
would the definition of responsibility be "ability to respond?"

[Anonymous No.2657417]

>>2657407
>>2657408

Well, some liberal philosophers have tried to argue that random quantum events are actually determined by free will, thus providing a 'point of entry' for free will to influence the physical brain without breaking the laws of physics. However, quantum events are apparently not really events but more theoretical auxiliary constructions, and even if they really exist(ed), they don't add up to the kind of phenomenon that is relevant for how the neurons interact, etc.

[Anonymous No.2657424]

>>2657417
>Well, some liberal philosophers have tried to argue that random quantum events are actually determined by free will, thus providing a 'point of entry' for free will to influence the physical brain without breaking the laws of physics.

yeah, and this is much more nonsense than anything continental philosophers say, and hardly solves the "probleM" of free will in the first place

[Anonymous No.2657431]

Condolences on your shitty philosophy and political beliefs, OP.

[Anonymous No.2657437]

Lately I have been reading a lot of the work Bourdieu made regarding sociology of science. I really like the way he is able to both explain the socio-historical nature of science as demonstrated by the social constructivist and science as a practice that discovers transhistorical truths at the same time, using the ideas of habitus of the field and the struggle for symbolic capital of the agents in the social space of science.

<3 Bourdieu

[Anonymous No.2657440]

>>2657413
no

[Anonymous No.2657442]

>>2657440
what then?

[Anonymous No.2657449]

>>2657442
From Marrian-Webster:

Re·spon·si·bil·i·ty; the quality or state of being responsible

Re·spon·si·ble; liable to be called to account as the primary cause

[Anonymous No.2657511]

different poster here
I think what he meant was that in the context of free will, could one interpret the meaning of responsibility over our actions as our ability to respond to our environment, and if "we" actually have a choice in the matter or if the laws of the universe are simply responded for use. I think it's clever the break the word response-ability down like that, in terms of this discussion.

>>2657449

[Anonymous No.2657522]

also,
If one assumes that someone may or may not be trolling, and posts a response, is he considered to be trolling? Do all methods of thought occur on the contingency of trolling?

[Anonymous No.2657530]

>more about what there is left of the autonomy and freewill of people.

stopped reading there.

i hope you can find time to read, cause you NEED TO.

[Anonymous No.2657528]

If there is no free will, just assign responsibility to things that aren't freely chosen.

There, done. No problem.

[Anonymous No.2657556]

ITT: first world problems

[Anonymous No.2657573]

>>2657556
>>implying there are problems on the Internet which are not first world problems

[Anonymous No.2657606]

>>2657373
>2012
>freewill

There is your problem OP

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2657608]

>>2657606
>Still believing in determinism
>Not understanding sub atomic particle physics proves 'random' events are possible thereby making future events unpredictable.

I shiggy do diggy

[Anonymous No.2657609]

>>2657606
>>2657556
>>2657530
>>2657431

OP here, can someone atleast explain to me why my question is so unacceptable? It's not like I'm asserting that there is absolutely the notion of freewill and autonomy, I'm just wondering if there was anyone ever defending it in a convincing manner...

[Anonymous No.2657621]

>>2657417

do you have a name? it sounds quite interesting, or maybe I'm just a faggot.

[Anonymous No.2657623]

>>2657609
>>2657608
Butterfly has a point. Part of the lack of free will theory has to do with the fact that all matter acts in a logical predictable way. - If I drop a pen, gravity will pull it to the floor, and I can repeat this experiment.

The action of neurons in the brain follow similar laws, you are effectively 'programmed' by life and your experiences, with some things putting the burden on genetics. These are all supposed to be predictable - If one was to somehow know the state of every atom in the universe, one could logically predict the future state of all atoms for any given time. Nothing you do will ever be your own as you are just a biological computer acting out the results of atomic interactions.

Any choice made is not your own as It could be predicted 100% by anyone who knows the state of every atom/neuron in the brain and knows the stimulus you are about to be exposed to.

However, If quantom mechanics is correct, some sub atomic particles can seemingly pop into existence for no reason, this effects quarks, and ultimately atoms, so nothing can be accurately predicted.

[Anonymous No.2657635]

>>2657623

not OP here but that sounds like an interesting theory...do you think an amateur could get into it? Do you have any books to recommend on that theory?

[Anonymous No.2657639]

>>2657401
Post-modernism doesn't reject the scientific method, it would be more accurate to say it makes a strawman and rejects a progressive/enlightenment understanding of science. That is to say, the scientific method and its discoveries are not good or bad. Further, that the scientific knowledge we have today isn't an ever-increasing, fully-utilized, logical, and systemic accumulation.

If you are curious, I'd suggest reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" along with Foucault's own analysis of the sciences and humanities. Foucault actually argues that the hard sciences have autonomy, unlike the "social sciences" or humanities. Anyone painting Foucault as the figurehead of moral relativism or post-modern subjectivity has obviously never read him. Or if they have, not carefully.

[Anonymous No.2657642]

>>2657635
As far as i'm aware it's not an established theory. I just expanded on what that butterfly guy said, I'd never even heard of or contemplated the notion before. I do have an interest in physics though and it does make sense, just never had the foresight to tie it to freewill.

I really hope the 'lack of freewill' determinism theory hasn't actually been debunked on 4chan by somebody posting as a butterfly.

[Anonymous No.2657650]

Free will is a ridiculous concept because it is abstract and absolutely unobservable. You eat because you are hungry. You decide not to eat, despite your hunger, because the chemicals in your brain motivate you toward some other goal. Likewise, when you choose to perform some anomalous act in order to prove your free will, you could be said to be doing this only because the chemicals in your brain were arranged in just such away. On the other hand, the chemicals in your brain also seem to have great control over themselves.

The problem, I believe, is simple misunderstanding. We must separate "free will" from the vicissitudes of the mind itself, because the mind is a product of of biological constructs. I believe our "free will" is simply our ability to break away from the dictations of instinct and survival. Thus, though are actions are the result of a particular combination of chemicals in a particular arrangement, I believe that our free will is defined by how those chemicals differ from those of animals. We create art and write histories and study, and all of this is unrelated to the urging of Mother Nature.

One could, however, argue that these creations are themselves just products of biological manipulation. I believe that this is irrelevant.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2657653]

>>2657642
>I really hope the 'lack of freewill' determinism theory hasn't actually been debunked on 4chan by somebody posting as a butterfly.

Thats right bitches, Ima goddamn geneus. did you know Sartre rhymes with Fart?

[Anonymous No.2657659]

>>2657650

This guy's got it. To have a real free will (i.e., to make completely free decisions) is to presume you can be the Prime Mover of your own intentions. Which is absurd, but a useful model for evolutionary survivorship. Saying free will is an illusion is simply to say that effects have causes. Duh, of course they do. You would have to believe in some strange supernatural, sterile mind-plane to believe anything else. Maybe like Platonic Forms? I don't know. It's bunk.

I doubt that we'll ever be able to predict what a person will do over a period more than seconds because of insane levels of complexity and variation between individual brains. There's also the problem of probabilistic variation, which would prevent long-term predictions anyway.

[Anonymous No.2657663]

>>2657659
>>2657650

>assuming mind=brain that is

[Anonymous No.2657667]

>>2657663
I have no reason to assume otherwise. It works without having to invent a whole other unparsimonious sphere of existence.

[Anonymous No.2657671]

>>2657667

[Anonymous No.2657677]

>>2657671
For future reference, the pineal gland is not the seat of the soul.

[Anonymous No.2657678]

>>2657663

From a purely scientific and empirical standpoint, the mind is a product of the biological framework that the brain provides. I'm sure that you have your own convoluted theories pertaining to the source of the mind, but we must, for the sake of argument, anchor ourselves to common knowledge and shared terms. If we cannot argue a point without diverging into only tangentially related debates, then we might as well not argue at all.

This is an excellent book, and it is directly related to this argument. Vonnegut makes a somewhat subtle point about free will, which I share with him. Pay attention to his describing the mind in terms of "chemicals," and yet a character who believes that all people are robots is quite confidently labeled "insane." This seemingly contradictory and paradoxical message is actually a mature approach to the topic. His point is fairly simple: Free will is complicated; because while we are subjects to the regal chemicals of the brain, we also diverge from what could be said to be "normal" or "natural" or "advantageous" behavior quite regularly, and we are of course quite capable of debating and pondering such abstract concepts, a fact that proves that we have some degree of freedom.

[Anonymous No.2657683]

>>2657678

That's a novel right?(not asking because I think non-fiction has more weight or anything, but more like if I have find the book you mean on amazon)

[Anonymous No.2657686]

>>2657650
Even if it is irrelevant, I really like the idea that creative expressions are inherent to our nature.

I mean, that statement is an obvious one but when you look at it within this debate, I find it quite beautiful.

[Anonymous No.2657688]

>>2657683

It is a novel. It's very short. If you haven't read any Vonnegut, you must get into his work immediately. At first you might find it depressing, but once you understand Vonnegut, you will see that he truly adores humanity. He is a self-described humanist.

You might look for it in your local library. It is a very short read. If you're short on money, it might be worth a rent. You can always buy it if you like it.