[ 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: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254360 No.3254360 [Reply] [Original]

>mfw neurological determinism refutes my entire philosophical system
>still boned Simone de Beauvoir, though

>> No.3254361

naw, man, naw

>> No.3254366

>>3254361

>a person has "free" will
>even though anything a person wills is determined by the functioning of the brain

Back to /x/ with you.

>> No.3254369
File: 118 KB, 376x492, joli-paul sartre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254369

But it doesn't.
And neurology doesn't even scratch what he talks about, you don't expect them to be conflicting.

>> No.3254372

>>3254366
It's person's will to decide whether he is determind by the brain or not and what does it mean and to take responsibility for that decision and that's what called freedom.

>> No.3254374

>>3254369

Elucidate your position. Sartre's contention that we are free to choose what we are can't be taken seriously in light of the fact that we aren't free to choose anything other than what our neurochemistry determines.

Existentialism sounds nice, but it's untenable in light of neuroscience.

>> No.3254375

>>3254366
The person is the brain.

Also, get back to /sci/ if you are not willing to read Sartre and is just going to embarass yourself here saying people said things that you don't understand.

>> No.3254376
File: 14 KB, 250x250, 133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254376

>can't into a priori leaps of faith as alternatives to complete nihilistic deterministic stasis
>use facile materialism to realize self and ego are mere illusions, but keep posting on 4chan and eating cheetos

>> No.3254381

>>3254366
We have free will in the same sense in which we have free thoughts, that is to say, in the only sense that's really meaningful for us as human beings.

>> No.3254382

>boned Simone de Beauvoir
poor guy

>> No.3254383

>>3254366
Don't forget that Sartre spoke often of the trivial nature that objective identification systems have. In other words, whether we are pre-determined by our neurological systems or not has no grounding on reality as we perceive and experience it - arguably the most important phenomenon for the individual to focus on. It is here that "free will" - even if it is just a perception of free will - becomes important.

>> No.3254384

>>3254372

Except a person's thought processes are determined by the brain, and it doesn't matter whether or not the person "believes" otherwise. They're wrong. In fact, the thoughts that would constitute this disbelief are also determined by neurochemistry.

>> No.3254388

You are out of your element, OP.

>> No.3254390

>>3254376

>uses vague buzzwords because he has no argument

>> No.3254392

>>3254375

Explain why I'm wrong, then.

>> No.3254396

>>3254384
A person's thought processes are determined by the brain and its neurochemical etc.

What difference does this make for the content of his thoughts - and for their validity in the context of that person's life - NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE. Whatever the source of my thoughts, they are my thoughts, and they function the same for me if they're the result of neurochemistry as if they're not. And the same is equally true as regards the will.

>> No.3254395

>>3254392
No, go read.
>>3254390
He was not vague, in fact, quite specific.

Can't believe kids these days...

>> No.3254394

>>3254392
see >>3254383

>> No.3254399
File: 21 KB, 300x300, 1355548936213.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254399

Do not feed the troll, folks.

>> No.3254402

>>3254396
This has nothing to do with neurochemistry, fag. That is not what the question on free will and determinism is about.

>> No.3254403

>>3254395

>No, go read

If you can't explain something simply, you haven't understood it. So why don't YOU go fuck off and read Sartre if you're so desperate to fellate his ideology?

>> No.3254404

>>3254402
Then what - precisely - is it about, if you please?

>> No.3254408

>>3254402

>can't into neurological determinism

If the interaction of neurons in my brain determines which thoughts I have, you can't say I have "free will".

>> No.3254411

>>3254399

Not a troll. Nobody ITT has offered a counterargument other than "hurr we know we don't have free will but let's believe in it anyway lel"

>> No.3254415

>>3254403
>ignoring >>3254383
> see >>3254399

>> No.3254417

>>3254411
You're free to stop acting as if you have causally unbound agency any time, bro!

>> No.3254420

>>3254417

I'm not. I'm aware that my critique of Sartre is determined by my brain chemistry.

>> No.3254424

>>3254420
Weird. I call my brain chemistry "me".

>> No.3254428

>>3254424

It doesn't matter what you call it. That's semantic bullshit.

>> No.3254430

>>3254420
But you could still choose not to make that critique.

I mean, the choice would still be determined by brain chemistry, sure, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from getting up and not engaging in this stupid debate anymore (as I'm about to do shortly). Whether or not the ultimate decision to get up or not is rooted in brain chemistry, it's still a decision that the self makes in the same sense in which it has thoughts, regards the world, etc etc etc.

>> No.3254437

>>3254383

So to be "free" is to irrationally believe in freedom despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Nope, back to /x/ with you and your metaphysical bullshit.

>> No.3254441

>>3254430

You're making nonsense of the word "decision" there. Whatever happens, you cannot "decide" otherwise, and therefore to speak of a "decision" is self-deluding bullshit.

>> No.3254439

>>3254428
And that's why you don't know what you are talking about.

>> No.3254445

>>3254437
Don't say back to /x/ because something is not /sci/. This is /lit/ and what the guy said is /lit/. Stop shitting our board.

>> No.3254446

>>3254439

Why? You still haven't explained your position.

>people who support Continental philosophy
>in charge of not appealing to facile obscurantism

>> No.3254450

>2012
>not being a compatibilist

>> No.3254451

>>3254420
>I didn't have a choice to not kill that guy, muy brain chemistrys made me do it

>> No.3254453

ITT: typical /lit/ter leftards are mad because scientific results don't confirm their preconceived notions of the world

>> No.3254454

Back in my day we were more subtle.

>> No.3254462

>>3254437
No, it's to believe in freedom properly defined. Freedom is an observed phenomenon - that is to say, we see ourselves making choices - which we can deal with in a number of ways - and whose origins are in something mechanical. There's nothing contradictory about that, and there's no reason to say that, because the phenomenon has an identifiable origin, it doesn't exist.

>>3254441
You're just as involved in linguistic malarkey as I am, because for some reason you want to focus this on free will, when in fact the center of your whole argument is against the existence of the self as such. Your argument would be more coherent and better if you made it on those terms - that there is no such thing as free will, because there is no self to choose, and everything that we experience as the self is simply an illusion.

I would argue that the self is a phenomenon, one which may have mechanical causes but which nonetheless has come into being and which we can regard and think about as such. And so we can say that the self "thinks" (even if we really mean that the mechanical armature which has led to the self aligned itself in so-and-so a position) and have it be meaningful for that self which is itself the body which thinks and the only body for which our thinking can matter - and it can similarly decide (even if that decision is fundamentally a result of similar mechanical causes).

>> No.3254474

>>3254462
>we see ourselves making choices

By the exact same argument any self-aware mechanical system is free. Your definition is idiotic and useless.

>> No.3254476

>>3254474
What precisely is the use of arguing that everything is totally determined by brain chemistry?

>> No.3254477

If humans have free will, could a computer program have free will?

>> No.3254478

The knowledge of neurochemical causation of will does not contain any inherent meaning to ones decisions and thus it does not imply limitation of his freedom.
Also the knowledge of freedom does not contain any inherent meaning thus does not imply that there is someone's will, that is free and can't be seen as neurochemical process.
So there is no any conflict of these views.

>> No.3254480

>>3254462
Don't feed the troll. He doesn't really want to know.

>> No.3254497

>>3254476
It allows us to set aside silly questions about morality, for one. If we do away with freedom of will, moral intent disappears and so does every moral question.

We can do away with the notion of the "self" as a metaphysical entity.

>> No.3254502

>>3254497
well, thank you for actually having the intellectual honesty to make this a discussion about the nature of the self instead of doing this disingenuous, trollish free-will thing

thanks for that, at least

>> No.3254526

>>3254478
You're so unbelievably wrong I actually want to hurt myself. How the fuck do you think you make a decision? Free magical choice? Do you think your brain has no influence over your decision making process? Die of every disease known to man at once you fucking stupid bastard.

>> No.3254533

sage

>> No.3254537

>>3254526
>I actually want to hurt myself.

ummmm no you don't , because that's just an illusion, there's no self for you to hurt, and even if there was you couldn't make a decision to hurt or not to hurt yourself. you don't want anything, you don't think anything, you can't say anything, all of these words are meaningless, you didn't just make that post on the internet, there is no internet

science here, happy to help. dumbfuck idiot b*tch

>> No.3254546

>>3254526
I didn't say it has not. It has. But who cares?

>> No.3254547

>>3254526
Wow, the way you draw conclusions is retarded. Your train of thought is a wreck, pal. What the actual fuck.

>> No.3254569

>>3254546
Who cares that all your thoughts are based on neurochemical reactions determined by your environment and genetics? Let's just pretend we're all free and happy. Sounds like a plan.

>>3254547
You're a fucking wreck. Go read some more Camus.

>> No.3254596

>>3254569
Nor freedom neither determinism are things in themselves that can not be doubted.
It is our decision to think that we are not free. We are responsible for this decision. It makes as free in an absurd way. We are doomed to perceive this absurdity and that's the point of sartre's freedom.

>> No.3254649

>>3254596
Please stop parroting Sartre's work and think about what you're saying. How can you be responsible for decisions that you did not make? How are you free to make decisions? We are doomed to believe we make decisions and pretend like we're in control.

Your English is awful, by the way.

>> No.3254690

>>3254474
you might be able to make the argument that any self-aware mechanical system IS free

>> No.3254719

>>3254649
That projection is on your conscience, no one forced you to believe so. That means you made a decision to believe so. So take responsibility and face consequences. You can to dump them on someone else, but be aware that's your decision. Be a man, not a coward.

>> No.3254723
File: 38 KB, 250x352, roflbot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3254723

Fixeé.

>> No.3254759

Also it is good to think where are the fucks you give to make a decision came from. If there were no fucks given, than no responsability on consequences can be taken.