/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9345491]

Come up with an argument against hard determinism

Not an argument:
>muh feels

[Anonymous No.9345496]

this show was awesome

[Anonymous No.9345500]

>Top tier OP: Makes a fleshed out argument for the position and asks for people to argue against it

>Shit tier OP: "come up with an argument against position"

[Anonymous No.9345502]

>>9345496
Just moments after the big bang it was predestined to be

[Anonymous No.9345503]

>>9345491
>OP uses the word argument outside the use of formal logic

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.9345504]

>>9345491
The the notion of a continuum chain of causal events is false.

[Anonymous No.9345518]

>>9345500
OK then here is my argument:
>the universe is dictated by strict rules, including the biochemical mechanisms inside the human brain
>although pure randomness can occur at sub-atomical level, as a whole this randomness is predictable once reacing molecular levels
>either way, adding randomness into a system doesn't magically make humans different

[Anonymous No.9345524]

>>9345504
what makes you think that.
try not to use the word "metaphysical" so you don't embarrass yourself

[Anonymous No.9345526]

>>9345491
Some assume that the human way of viewing things is the correct way of viewing things (or that there even is a correct way of viewing things). Determinism is a human way of viewing the world. It could be that there is a realm outside of determinism, but we would likely not be able to understand it because we are structured to see things as cause and effect.

Honestly I'm just parroting Nietzsche. If you want a rousing argument against determinism then I suggest that you read Will to Power.

[Anonymous No.9345529]

>>9345502
>tfw

[Anonymous No.9345532]

>>9345526
>but we would likely not be able to understand it because we are structured to see things as cause and effect.
how is this different from believing in God?

[Anonymous No.9345534]

>>9345491
What show is that from?

And there are no arguments against hard determinism. How could the universe be anything but deterministic?

[Anonymous No.9345537]

>>9345491
There aren't any. /thread

[Anonymous No.9345539]

>>9345529
>tfw i thought you stole my screencap but I never ever posted it

[Anonymous No.9345547]

>>9345491
>demonstrate the existence of immaterial things using only material things
Impossible

[Anonymous No.9345551]

There are multiple documented experiments that demonstrated the influence that will has over the material word.
For example, placebo/nocebo effect is a real thing

As reality is indeed affected by the will (esp. 'voluntad'), destiny therefore cannot be predetermined, for one thing cannot be at the same time determined and constantly modified by men's ever=changing desires.

[Anonymous No.9345557]

>>9345534
Three Kingdoms (chinese san guo 三国)

Mind you there is an older series as well but these screencaps are form the new one. It's really good (though chinese people swear by the old one)

It's based on one of the four chinese classics, the romance of the three kingdoms. It's (mostly) historically accurate, it plays in the period of chaos and three kingdoms after the Han Dynasty

[Anonymous No.9345558]

>>9345551
>There are multiple documented experiments that demonstrated the influence that will has over the material word.
>For example, placebo/nocebo effect is a real thing
kek

>>9345547
metaphysical things aren't real, no matter how much you want them to be
>but you can't prove it because it cannot be proven
go back to church anon

[Anonymous No.9345563]

>>9345518
Random is exactly the opposite of predictable

[Anonymous No.9345569]

>>9345532
The question is epistemological. The existence of God is assumptive. God's existence must be assumed to generate an idea on the matter. Wondering if cause and effect may not be all encompassing is akin to asking "How do we know that all is cause and effect?" This is a question of our own ability to know. This is not so much a question of the factuality of an idea such as God. I do see what you mean, both questions require that we ask how we can know.

[Anonymous No.9345571]

>>9345558
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.9345582]

>>9345569
Here's something following your line of thought: my assumption is that everything I say is right and you are clueless about it. Now from this position convince me I'm wrong and you are right.

Protip you can't because you set up a fake idea then claim it impossible to disprove because you just also added a fake part of reality in which you are right.

[Anonymous No.9345584]

>>9345558
>metaphysical things aren't real, no matter how much you want them to be
Then your preferences aren't real and you can stop pretending to be superior.

[Anonymous No.9345590]

>>9345584
>>9345551

>I don't understand physics so everything I don't understand is metaphysical

[Anonymous No.9345593]

Is it hard determinism, or is it the power of an Idea whose time has come?

[Anonymous No.9345600]

>>9345569
>The existence of God is assumptive

mfw this is what Occidentals actually believe

[Anonymous No.9345603]

>>9345593
Fuck you Georg

[Anonymous No.9345609]

>>9345590
Your sense of superiority has no basis in a worldview deprived of values. This arrogance is contradictory to the "perspective" you espouse. In other words, you are a pseudo intellectual ape, beating yourself off and expecting us to act impresed. No one cares.

[Anonymous No.9345613]

>>9345518
>randomness is predictable

Then it ain't random, son.

[Anonymous No.9345624]

>>9345603
*dialectic intensifies*

[Anonymous No.9345623]

>>9345590
YOU don't understand physics if you think it has much of anything to say about traditional metaphysical questions

[Anonymous No.9345634]

>>9345582
Assumptions are not knowledge, they are guesses. Although some assumptions (such as you being a faggot) may be true, they must first be verified (through you posting ridiculous arguments). The idea of determinism not necessarily being the whole truth (or the way things actually are) can be arrived at with the quite simple truth that humans oftentimes do not see things in the way that they truly are (such as how we cannot see the full light spectrum, or how we distort and misrepresent distance, ect.) What separates this from assumption is that it has be subjected to scrutiny and determinism as well can be subjected to scrutiny, we may not have the instruments to see it yet (such as how ultraviolet could not be even considered real untill the modern era).

[Anonymous No.9345659]

>>9345624
It is not very effective

[Anonymous No.9345726]

>>9345659
how about now

[Anonymous No.9345734]

>>9345726
Not at all dude.

[Anonymous No.9345743]

>>9345734
just a little more time

i can feel we're making progress here

[Anonymous No.9345750]

Why? Arguing is wrong

[Anonymous No.9345757]

Come up with an argument against absolute idealism and the implication that there are no "externalities" that could control thought

Not an argument
>muh feels

[Anonymous No.9345768]

>>9345757
argument: you can't exclude muh feels as a counterargument when muh feels is how you are arriving at your own conclusion

[Anonymous No.9345773]

>>9345743
Fuck off, son.

[Anonymous No.9345774]

>>9345569
>assumptive
God is immanent, while all other experiences are lensed. To deny the existence of God is to deny existence.

[Anonymous No.9345804]

>>9345773
this is it anon

i've rerouted all power through hegel's nose in an emergency overdrive, we're coming into reality now

unfortunately, the crew and i cannot be expected to survive this shitpost as we cross through the memeosphere at maximum speed

over and out

[Anonymous No.9345816]

>>9345768
Counterargument: it's not tho

How do you get to hard determinism via a different route?

[Anonymous No.9345840]

>>9345804
I have accepted death as an inescapable part of my journey through existence.

[Anonymous No.9345877]

>>9345491
>'Hard determinism is real'
>'Give me an argument'
7/10, best I can do

[Anonymous No.9346069]

>>9345774
Yeah, but where are your proofs?

[Anonymous No.9346087]

>>9345877
this (you) is well-earned

[Anonymous No.9346088]

>>9345491
can you provide an argument for it?
can you also provide proof that our understanding of determinism is indeed the truest form of reality possible?

[Anonymous No.9346092]

>>9345496
Which show is it?

[Anonymous No.9346106]

>>9346092
three kingdoms 2010

it used to be available on YouTube for free in English but i guess they took it down

[Anonymous No.9346142]

I hate sushi, never really liked it. Not huge on raw fish.

There is a conceivable possibility that I might one day like sushi, I might get it at lunch, completely at random which goes against most deterministic arguments - given my previous experience. Most fatalistic determinists argue that we're slaves to our experience.

However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to randomly develop a taste for slugs out of my garden, there are still limits to in-determinism.

[Anonymous No.9346160]

>>9346106
Thanks.
It doesn't matter, I'll find it

[Anonymous No.9346351]

>>9346069
>proof
Experience is proof