/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9643230]

>he thinks free will exists

[Anonymous No.9643255]

I mean it like... it might, but it's like something that we can't really like ... access ... given our like material 'reality'.

[Anonymous No.9643279]

>>9643255
is ideology, and ideas, and idealism actually just literally material?

[Anonymous No.9643286]

doesn't really matter. what matters is that if you think there is no free will, you will fall into existential crisis, so it's not very practical to think that way irl. might be interesting from a philosophical point of view, but is it really worth it to fuck up your life for philosophy?

[Anonymous No.9643293]

pic related

[Anonymous No.9643309]

>>9643279
Well like the observation of the material world determines like how we think of it and like what we think of the world is like reflected in that world by the ideas and the like like art, which likewise like constitutes that reality which we use to like form our ideas, etc.

[Anonymous No.9643526]

>>9643286
>>9643286
This.

Okay, say it doesn't. I realize and acknowledge that everything in my life including the thoughts I think are not subject to my direct control and therefore outside the reach of my will.

This revelation is beneficial to me because?

[Anonymous No.9643532]

*punches focault in the face*
nothing personal

[Anonymous No.9643564]

How is a person with no will supposed to deny free will? It takes free will to deny free will with certainty. Since our flavor of certainty is the best certainty we have, we have free will.

[Anonymous No.9643570]

>>9643526
>This revelation is beneficial to me because?
Because you lose responsibility as we know it.

[Anonymous No.9643589]

>>9643570
Do you know what beneficial means?

[Anonymous No.9643594]

>>9643526
You could go as far as saying that because people have no free will, they are merely a victim of circumstances and can't be held morally responsible for their actions since they were not the cause of those actions. This in turn, can make you think twice about your feelings towards individuals which are then based on actions they could not inherently control. It also leaves some interesting questions on which grounds we can justify punishing people for their actions, since retributive punishment seems quite hollow (for this reason among others). This is a crude way of explaining it, but some interesting thoughts about this subject have been written.

>>9643564
It doesn't take free will for me to do any action, why would an internal brain action be any different just because it is self-regarding. Furthermore, the free will aspect comes from the free will somehow being the cause of itself or at least being undetermined. Your objection doesn't hold.

[Anonymous No.9643664]

>>9643594
Define free will.

[Anonymous No.9643677]

>>9643526
actually what i meant was the opposite. it's disadvantageous to think you don't have free will since it will make you feel like you're a victim instead of having the outlook that you can change things you're not happy with. wether one or the other is true doesn't really matter. just think you do have some controle if you don't want to fall into nothing and spend the rest of your life depressed.

[Anonymous No.9643699]

>>9643664
I'll admit that the debate surrounding free will and determinism is constantly bogged down in definitions of terms such as 'agent', 'determinism', and 'free will'.

However, I do maintain that the only free will worth having is when free will is the unmoved mover and the primum mobile of an action. In order for a will to be free, it has to be either the causa sui or undetermined. The free agent, therefore, would be the one who is independent of causes by which he is moved. In this sense, I don't believe the will is free or the agent is free.

This is more or less Holbach's definition, but I feel the compatibilist notion of free will being defined as absence of constraints, with more compatibilists leaning towards external constraints is not nearly as valuable as the free will I suggested earlier. This seems to me to be simply muddling with words in order to make them fit your definition. Even this version of free will arguably doesn't exist, since the external constraints are no different than the internal constraints which are determined and therefore beyond one's influence.

[Anonymous No.9643701]

>I posted it again

[Anonymous No.9643742]

There is no free will.
There is the "user illusion" because we all make sensible choices given our background etc. etc.
If you don't know what motivates you, you're not really free. Determinism is total and absolute, the only choice a person can make is to adopt a methodical approach. See Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.9643757]

>>9643230
>he thinks unfree will exists

[Anonymous No.9643759]

>>9643664
I'll define it as "given the ability to return X years to the past, everything being the same, could you have done any differently?"

My answer is no. If you mean something else by free will, define it and I might agree with you.

I'm not the dude you replied to but I agree with him so far. I use this definition because it tends to be the most common one people apply when talking about free will (laymen at least).

[Anonymous No.9643768]

>>9643230
If only this guy took psychology as serious as his ideas.

Any academic who say free will doesnt exist , i think is just using it as a marketing trick.
They are booksellers not authors.

[Anonymous No.9643772]

>>9643699
Philosophy doesnt happen in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.9643776]

Free Will does exist. But you guys are too blind to see it. You are argueing it from a syllogostic analytical standpoint. And no one has so far tbough to talk about the psychology behind free will. Suprising seeing as how /x/ would be all about mindful meditation and stuff.
So here it goes
Consiousness: There are two levels of consiouness , refered to here to just mean waking state. There is low consiouness, which takes care of your routines and schemas. Kinda the stuff you dont really need to concentrate much to think about. This state you produce waves , and this is where advertisers want you so they can appeal to your more automatic desires.
High level of consiouness has to deal with those times you think hard to make a decision, try to solve a difficult problem, or try to learn something new. When people talk of being mindful, this is the high consiouness state. Sometimes manic ,delusional, or panicky mind states represent this as well. Traumatic expierences to incite periods of high consiousness.
The point here is that some people consider "free wont" to be proof of free will. That a person could deny himself food when he ferls hungry must mean we have free will. But this is only part of it.
The big misunderstanding about free will to, an underlying assumtion that most people debating this subject is that if it "FREE" will it must vome easy right?
That where i think they are wrong. To make a free choice takes alot of effort. The will must be exterted, can we choose when we can exert the will? Yes. Take meditation, do dialiectical behavior therapy. All evidenced based practices proven to work and help people deal with anxiety, depression, and even psychosis.
People forget what Nietzche is trying to say with the ubermensch. But essentialy, it is suffering through the obsticles of oppression to become free.

[Anonymous No.9643777]

>>9643699
>However, I do maintain that the only free will worth having is when free will is the unmoved mover and the primum mobile of an action.
The only free will worth having is psychological freedom.

Admittedly you cosplay very well as mr philosophant and your arguments are very good but I urge you to leave your bubble and realize free will is a psychological matter through and through. It is choosing between banana and coconut. And that is worth having. It's not as sublime as a metaphysical space fairy free will, but when I say I want a banana instead of a coconut and I get it that's my free will being satisfied.

Here's a flowchart: I want it. Because I want it it is my will. Because I wasn't coerced, it is my free will.

>Oh but you don't know if you reeeeeeally want it maybe you're not the decision maker
Not relevant to primates. No part of our existence needs to play unmoved mover. Look at people and their problems. What's relevant is do you want the banana. That is as free as you're gonna get. You can call it unfree because it boils down to bodily functions but that is merely a play on words. You could call it anything.
The human psyche transcends words aimed at evoking mental and emotional associations aimed at making me respond in context coercing me with your depreciated context of mr philosophant speak, it's fading glory and my implied humiliation if I don't respond in proper context.

It's 2017, no one cares.

[Anonymous No.9643783]

>>19150157
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
http://nobaproject.com/modules/states-of-consciousness
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower.aspx

[Anonymous No.9643790]

ITT: No one has read Foucault outside of a cursory glance at Wikipedia. They dislike him because Peterson told them to. This guy >>9643768 especially.

[Anonymous No.9643816]

>>9643790
>They dislike him because Peterson told them to.
A-actually it was Paglia A-anon senpai...

[Anonymous No.9643825]

>>9643816
I like Paglia and Foucault. Foucault is really underrated by people who hate him and butchered and misread by those who love him.

If you want Foucault read right read Agamben and Sloterdijk.

Peterson is a hack.

[Anonymous No.9643828]

>>9643777
checked

[Anonymous No.9643831]

>>9643777
>Admittedly you cosplay very well as mr philosophant
I'm just trying to be as clear as possible. No need to start out with some half-baked personal attack. This is just the position I'm arguing from. In the end only metaphysical free will in the most encompassing way, as the free will being a causa sui or at least undetermined, is valuable since any free will that is less than this, such as psychological free will, is derived from the greater notion of free will.

>Because I want it it is my will. Because I wasn't coerced, it is my free will.
This notion has some practical value but it completely ignores the more encompassing notion of free will. The latter simply doesn't exist. This may not have practical implications like the absence of psychological free will would have, but it's true none the less.

>It's 2017, no one cares.
>Not relevant to primates. No part of our existence needs to play unmoved mover.
This line of reasoning and your entire post is basically saying that because it has no direct practical purposes no one should even bother with these kinds of philosophical questions or concepts. This doesn't make the questions any less interesting however and also isn't quite the objection you make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.9643833]

>>9643790
Does Peterson have a problem with free will, I don't read the guy.

I know Peterson claims to be a follower of Nietzche a guy that insisted in Geneology of Morality that free will only came into existence as a concept in ordre to make people feel guilt and thus control them with morality ie "You CHOOSE to do that. Because you had the freedom not to, it makes you evil. You should instead choose to be good, here is a list of commandments which are good to follow."

[Anonymous No.9643854]

>>9643776
Pretty reminiscent of Nietzsche desu, just pulling facts about the nature and history of consciousness out of your ass and using them to support fantastical conclusions. 3/10

[Anonymous No.9643859]

>>9643831
>I'm just trying to be as clear as possible.
You constrain yourself into acting out a role that you personally find noble but which is ultimately a dead end. I am too intellectually advanced to enter such a passe frame of reference such as philosophenspeak.

My free will > your free will.

[Anonymous No.9643863]

>>9643831
>In the end only metaphysical free will in the most encompassing way, as the free will being a causa sui or at least undetermined, is valuable since any free will that is less than this, such as psychological free will, is derived from the greater notion of free will.

[Anonymous No.9643946]

>>9643833
Nietzche doesn't have a problem with free will per se, he just had a problem with all attempts at justifying its existence that he was aware of. peterson himself is a believer in free will and this does not make him at odds with nietzsche because he posited his own justifications for it (don't ask me what they are I completely forget)

[Anonymous No.9643953]

>>9643863
>>9643859

[Anonymous No.9643959]

>>9643790
I actually I do. I even read him in French (because I'm French). He's right about everything I've read so far though.

[Anonymous No.9643961]

>>9643589
>He doesn't understand the appeal of no responsibility

[Anonymous No.9643966]

>>9643961
No responsibility but no good/evil objectivity either.

[Anonymous No.9643975]

>>9643966
The perfect man embodies Atlas.

[Anonymous No.9643981]

>>9643975
And who is embodied through the perfect cat?

[Anonymous No.9643993]

>>9643981

[Anonymous No.9643997]

>>9643255
but consciousness is not material

[Anonymous No.9644004]

>>9643993
No, genuine question. If your thought system can't handle the fast a "perfect human" makes as much sense as a "perfect cat" ergo you can't deal with the fact humans are a part of nature instead of mysterious beings.

>>9643997
It 100% is, have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years ?

[Anonymous No.9644005]

>>9644004
>It 100% is

where did you hear this, a neil degresse tyson vid?

[Anonymous No.9644022]

>>9644005
French university of Lille 1 actually. It's widely accepted around the world consciousness and general thought/perception stems from electrical activity in neural networks that build up our brain/spine.

[Anonymous No.9644027]

>>9644022
>French university of Lille 1 actually

I don't care about your overpriced education. Save the appeal to authority for retards like yourself.

>It's widely accepted around the world

No it is not.

[Anonymous No.9644032]

>>9643526
Because it's the truth. You may as well say you support censorship because if the public knew what's "really" going on something bad would happen.

[Anonymous No.9644042]

>>9644004
>No, genuine question. If your thought system can't handle the fast a "perfect human" makes as much sense as a "perfect cat" ergo you can't deal with the fact humans are a part of nature instead of mysterious beings.

What?
"Normal cats" are incapable of being anything but cats.
The human brain is the most complex thing in the universe. Even so "my" point wasn't about mysticism.
There is free will, it's just that humans aren't made up of 'one' will.

My point was a man doing nothing but indulging his short term desires will die miserable. Probably living miserable as well, cause he's not living up to his "potential", or even truly trying. Potential as in living a life that he can die with dignity for himself.

[Anonymous No.9644046]

>>9644042
>There is free will, it's just that humans aren't made up of 'one' will.
What do you mean then? That there are different forces acting against one another? If you mean it like the need to breathe being the most important, followed by the need to drink etc. it would result in a dynamic yet predictible system, so no free will to be found.

[Anonymous No.9644059]

>>9644027
I'm not that guy but you're being a complete retard
>where did you hear this, a neil degresse tyson vid?
(implying he has no credible source)
>I don't care about your overpriced education. Save the appeal to authority for retards like yourself.
(calls him a retard for actually having a credible source)

[Anonymous No.9644062]

>>9644046
Free will in my eyes is the ability to choose between things we desire, what we desire changes and we often desire contradictory things.
You know Freud? Sure he got a shit ton of shit wrong, but it was never absolutely wrong.
Ever heard about Hippocampus? We can refuse it, sure if we never do what we need to survive "it" will eventually overpower "us".
Free will is the ability to not eat the tasty cake you really want to eat. It is hard, really hard. Point is we can. We can exercise it (not as in work out, but I guess we can do that too), mostly people don't on a daily basis. And I guess it requires high intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9644066]

>>9644062
The concept of free will implies that when you take a certain course of action, you could've imply chose another, but that would be phisically impossible, our ideas don't come from a black void, whatever desition you will take depends on forces outside of your "control"

[Anonymous No.9644073]

>>9644022

[Anonymous No.9644075]

>there are people itt that need free will to feel like they actually have power
>they don't know that not believing in free will makes you more powerful
>yfw you realize that 'free will' is just an idea rooted in the executive part of the brain to coerce other parts of the brain into acting in unison
>yffw you realize that it is all just power politics of the brain's separate parts
>YOUR FUCKING FACE WHEN you realize Foucault was actually somewhat right
>tfw you experience the revelation that you can use your critical facilities to better manipulate your own behavior, thoughts, habits, and personality by modifying internal and external factors through use of self coercion
>yfw my post has equipped the rational part of your brain with a means of greater controlling the other parts of your brain and your behavior itself
Free will fags, get fucked

[Anonymous No.9644076]

>>9644073
>paying lot of money
>French uni

[Anonymous No.9644078]

>>9644066
>>The concept of free will implies that when you take a certain course of action,
only rationalists claim that their little mental proliferation relate to the senses

[Anonymous No.9644081]

>>9644059
>"credible source"
>le argument from authority
You're too stupid to be here, or anywhere for that matter. Leave.

[Anonymous No.9644082]

>>9643677
>instead of having the outlook that you can change things you're not happy with
That's retarded.
Your desire to change things also stem from your past experiences and your own constitution.
Acknowledging that doesn't mean you renounce to act upon it.

[Anonymous No.9644085]

>he thinks its non existence isnt a full confirmation of it

[Anonymous No.9644087]

>>9644027
>"where did you learn that?"
>guy answers
>"I don't care!"
wew

[Anonymous No.9644088]

>>9644004
>It 100% is, have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years ?
So we can control the flow of iones that initiate the action potentials by ourselves then, you drooling fucking moron?

[Anonymous No.9644089]

>>9644073

[Anonymous No.9644097]

>>9644066
As I said, there's free-will. The brain isn't just one will. Free-will might be the wrong word, but the point is the same.
Each part do not communicate with each other directly.
In fact you can have people with "split" brains, they still act and think of themselves as one person. Even when right and left brain has zero communication.

Seriously read/study some psychology and neuroscience.
If you could have your brain wired up in a way so if you press a button your brain releases all the happy hormones, I doubt most people would. That's literally what drug addiction is. Yet most people don't do this.

If you were right, nobody would suffer now for rewards net year. Your hippocampus hates it, our subconscious would never suffer if it was in control.

Google Quantum cognition.
Just google probability/quantum physics for that matter.
Even if you knew every particles current behavior and function, you wouldn't be able to predict the future.

[Anonymous No.9644098]

>>9644073
>paid money to attend a state funded university
Hopefully it's some form of reverse bait

[Anonymous No.9644102]

>>9644088
No, you have no control over it. It's called neural impulses but it happens all the time, it's also called thought, consciousness, but also perception, senses, feelings etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.9644106]

>>9644102
I'd tell you to kill yourself for being this retarded with your reductionism to think literally everything is in the neural impulses, but you can always bail by saying how you have no free will, thus no control over anything, so you can't do it even if you want to, so it would be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.9644108]

>>9644089

[Anonymous No.9644109]

>>9644108
meant for
>>9644073

[Anonymous No.9644110]

>>9644097
>le quantum physigz disproves determinism meme

[Anonymous No.9644115]

>>9644097
The question is about whether or not our brain actions are mechanical, not if they are deterministic. Physical determinism have nothing to do with that question.

[Anonymous No.9644120]

>>9644106
I'm saying there is only one thing you can do, and that is to acknowledge you have very little control over the choices you make. Instead of relying on raw perception or preconceived thoughts, you can through reason make sure never to be wrong. Idk, read up some Spinoza online, something like On the Improvement of the Understanding by Spinoza

[Anonymous No.9644131]

>>9644110
It's not quantum physics.
But how our brain acts in a "similar" way to quantum particles.
They use quantum, cause there's no other word for it

>>9644115
Mechanical and deterministic are the same thing.
If an thing doing the same thing and it doesn't result in the same result every time, it's not mechanical.
Or do you mean mechanical as in there's no freewill cause brain is made of matter or "parts"?

[Anonymous No.9644136]

>>9644131
To add to this.
Consciousness/brain is more than the sum of its parts.

[Anonymous No.9644137]

>>9644131
>Mechanical and deterministic are the same thing.
I'm sorry but you're wrong breh.
Atoms of fissile matter popping up according to a random distribution described by quantum physics is mechanical but not deterministic.

Besides, your neurons randomly firing because of some physical dice rolls do not constitute "free will", this is absurd.

[Anonymous No.9644151]

>>9644131
>They use quantum, cause there's no other word for it
Sounds an awful lot like "I can't back it up but trust me guys"

[Anonymous No.9644156]

>>9644131
>"Mechanical and deterministic are the same thing."
>quantum MECHANICS
>not deterministic
really sizzled my onions

[Anonymous No.9644176]

>>9644137
I use mechanical as in the cogs in a clock, an "engineering" perspective. It's the only place I would use it. Something mechanical acts the same way every time. Our brain does not.

>Besides, your neurons randomly firing because of some physical dice rolls do not constitute "free will", this is absurd.
That's "exactly" what it means.
Except I would say, as I've already sort of said:
Our brain is made up of bunch of parts that do not communicate directly to each other. Something needs to decide between the impulses they give you. That is "free" will.

Even if you give a human brain the exact same stimulus, under the "exact same" circumstances, it won't give same result.
We can choose to suffer.

And as I've also said. Most people do not choose and just act. It's very hard to choose what "you" truly wish.
I'd say freewill is predicated on having a calm surrounding and your base needs set. Then the will to suffer.

[Anonymous No.9644187]

>>9644176
>Our brain does not.
Brain plasticity is a fairly deterministic concept that can easily be modeled like ant trails that self reinforce or cull themselves.

[Anonymous No.9644206]

>>9644176
>Even if you give a human brain the exact same stimulus, under the "exact same" circumstances, it won't give same result.
sauce needed
there are very little quantum effects in water at 300°K

[Anonymous No.9644212]

>>9643230
Yes but I didn't choose to believe it, now fuck off. These threads are horrible.

[Anonymous No.9644215]

>>9644176
>I use mechanical as in the cogs in a clock, an "engineering" perspective. It's the only place I would use it. Something mechanical acts the same way every time. Our brain does not.
lel
so radioactivity is not mechanical according to your retarded definition

[Anonymous No.9644216]

If you can freely say that free will doesn't exist, you've just proven that free will does, in fact, exist simply by exerting your *will* or ideology, value, belief, choice, etc

[Anonymous No.9644218]

>>9644151
>implying
>>9644156
I meant, I misunderstood what he meant with mechanical you fucktard
>>9644187
And that denies "freewill" how?
It just changes your will, plural.
I'm arguing the ability to choose between two equally attractive proposals. Not manufacture your own proposals. That we can't do. Maybe with a week of rigorous thought.

[Anonymous No.9644227]

>>9644216
You don't even understand what's being discussed. I suggest you refrain from further input and read instead.

[Anonymous No.9644229]

>>9644218
>two equally attractive proposals
You don't choose things because you like them, it's more of a you like them because you choose them. It's a post-choice rationalization that eventually defines your being, what people call the hexis/habitus if you read Bourdieu

[Anonymous No.9644248]

>>9644229
You often make a choice before you "declare" it.
Sometimes people use that as denying freewill, dunno how that makes sense.
>>9644206
Dunno if this is right one.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40062861?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
TL:DR The "sure thing principle of rational decision theory". Isn't always such a sure thing. It is most of the time/we have predictable behavior. But it seems our brains CAN choose "not to". As in some statistical experiment result in random results in majority of results...
Could just be the flaw of mechanical function the brain from being so large.
I argue that's what consciousness/freewill is.
Like a side effect of too many neurons.

[Anonymous No.9644301]

>>9644248
You don't really "make" a choice as much as you weigh the pros and cons, there isn't much of your personality in it, that's all there is to say. Of course you can only gauge things through your own perceptions but it still means it's deterministic. Your choices are as personal as CIV IV AIs' are.

[Anonymous No.9644316]

>>9644227
I was under the impression we were discussing, broadly, free will. Did I miss something?

[Anonymous No.9644324]

>>9644316
Is a robot stating he's a robot free? Is a robot stating he isn't a robot free either? We are meat robots following the laws of physics and biology, thus sociology makes sense.

[Anonymous No.9644339]

>>9644324
Sociology is usually informed by the field of social sciences and humanities. I'm not sure how studying natural science helps us understand anything beyond biological causes.

[Anonymous No.9644342]

>>9644339
It does on the individual level. What spinoza described as affects and conatus.

[Anonymous No.9644365]

>>9644301
Yeah, but we're the only animal, as far as we know, that CAN weigh the pros and cons, and even choose the con, seemingly, "just cause". Or at least irrationally to no ones benefit at all and the decision-makers detriment, except for perhaps curiosity's sake.

Perhaps you can say freewill is nothing more than the result of hippocampus "not being needed". The result being conflicting wills. Freewill is the ability to randomly pick on of those wills.
As I've said in almost every post.
Most of the time our Hippocampus choose for us, sometimes our Amygdala does.
Am I the only one who has felt the desire, almost overwhelming me, pulling me to do something, yet not doing it? Or at best "holding off". That is what freewill is.
Call it "the ability to pause the clockwork of our minds" so new satisfying impulses can emerge instead of the one that was.
>I really want that cookie. No cookie!
Have you ever tried hurting yourself? (Like testing blood pressure by yourself) Man your entire being tries to stop *you*. It's almost impossible.

[Anonymous No.9644382]

>>9643230
Whenever I encounter someone arguing there is no free will (which is hilarious in and of itself) I find that , just like the foes of Global Warming that fly private jets 5,000 miles to a conference on reducing CO2 emissions, they do not live as if they believe it.
They own lobbying firms where they spend money to change people's' minds; they are proud of their own academic achievements; they vote; they are very concerned about crime; etc.
The greatest argument for free will is the incoherence of those who preach against it.

[Anonymous No.9644386]

>>9644342
Thanks for clarifying. I'd like to do a comparative analysis between Spinoza and Plato's Theory of Forms.

[Anonymous No.9644389]

>>9644386
I'm sure you'd find Spinoza makes a very nice ontologic synthesis between Platonician theories and the Hegelian idealism. Slavoj Zizek also developed a concept called Parallax that is IMO very interesting in order to nuance that synthesis. I could develop more but it's about overcoming the object/subject false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.9644397]

>>9643230
>he thinks free will doesn't exist

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

[Anonymous No.9644403]

>>9644397
>aynrandlexicon
Probably the best argument there is for hard determinism.
Ayn Rand's philosophy can be summed up as "rich people are vertuous because they became free when they decided to be rich" or some other asinine nonsense

[Anonymous No.9644417]

>>9644403
Ayn Rand is like Freud.
Wrong in details, but right holistically.
She has good points, she just argues them poorly.

To just throw everything someone says cause a portion of what they say is bullshit, I'd say that is very dumb.

[Anonymous No.9644426]

>>9644417
She has no good points

[Anonymous No.9644427]

>>9644389
Not familiar with Hegelian idealism specifically, but I'm going to check that out

[Anonymous No.9644430]

>>9644417
The only way I would agree with someone like Rand would be about her criticism of the USSR but supporting globalized capitalism is probably such a deeply rooted issue here, it completely muddies the thought into incoherent babblings, especially when compared to most leftist thinkers.

[Anonymous No.9644435]

>>9644382
Saved.
That's great discussion bait, a bit late for this thread.

[Anonymous No.9644439]

>>9644427
Basically the same thing phrased differently. The material world we perceive is but a projection of a more complex reality we can barely grasp. Ideas have a life by themselves through matter and through dialectics, minds change.

[Anonymous No.9644443]

>>9644403
>or some other asinine nonsense
I despise Randroids, but at least have some grasp of what you criticize

[Anonymous No.9644446]

Doesn't matter as long as the illusion of free will continues to exist.

Next question.

[Anonymous No.9644456]

>>9644426
>Altruism is not actually selfish at all
>Doing what's best for yourself in a thought out and intelligent manner wouldn't result in mankind being better out.
"Long-term-selfishness" would benefit everyone. In fact, everyone is already selfish just not long-term.

You can't be truly creative without some form of narcissism.

[Anonymous No.9644465]

>>9644365
>Yeah, but we're the only animal, as far as we know, that CAN weigh the pros and cons, and even choose the con, seemingly, "just cause".
Did you mean as far as you know ?

[Anonymous No.9644474]

>>9644456
>Altruism is not actually selfish at all
>because people feel gud or expect future benefits when they do something altruistic
wow what a fucking mindblowing revelation, not like every fucking middle schooler came to it independently

[Anonymous No.9644475]

>>9644443
Way too drunk to figure out a way to phrase Rand's opinions in a way that sounds somewhat respectful. But I agree that wasn't a very good message overall.

[Anonymous No.9644480]

>>9644474
Well she did sell a lot of books to American people.

[Anonymous No.9644522]

>>9643230
So you are saying he simply HAD to get aids?

[Anonymous No.9644530]

>>9644474
Just like Freud.
Their ideas become "common tongue", as if they were always there.
There wasn't really any subconscious before Freud, altruism was 100% good before Rand, obviously some faggot maybe thought of it first, but they made it popular.

[Anonymous No.9644538]

>>9644530
Yeah except if you keep thinking about it one more minute, you realize it does in no way imply that "altruism is not altruism" unless the reward is always commensurate to the altruistic act.

It generally isn't. The satisfaction you get from gibing money to charity is not worth the thousands of dollars you just spent.

[Anonymous No.9644546]

>>9644538
>It generally isn't. The satisfaction you get from gibing money to charity is not worth the thousands of dollars you just spent.
What are you giving for, then, if it isn't satisfaction somehow, or reducing your discomfort in anyway?

[Anonymous No.9644550]

>>9644538
The point is to not lie to yourself.
When people think they're patron saints of virtue and are incapable of evil, that they would refuse Stalin's orders and not send people of to sibberia... They are the very ones capable of committing "evil".

[Anonymous No.9644553]

>>9644546
Because of a philosophical belief in duty?

[Anonymous No.9644555]

>>9643286
It does matter. When people realize free will doesn't exist the justice system will be radically transformed.

[Anonymous No.9644575]

>>9644555
This is just gods of chaos giving you these trips of truth. I want fall for it! Freewill exist, it's just the one of weakest of your many wills/drives, it takes willpower to have freewill, to overcome your urges! The Will to Power, per se...

[Anonymous No.9644591]

>>9644575
Do you freely choose what you will, or do those drives simply arise?

[Anonymous No.9644610]

>>9644553
You postpone the problem... How would that escape any psychic or social economy? (obviously I'm not speaking of monetary economy)

[Anonymous No.9644619]

>>9643230
>I really, really, want to give hiv to people because I'm deeply mentally ill and morall bankrupt
>but if free will and morality exist, I would be a bad person for doing that!
>...got it!

[Anonymous No.9644626]

>>9644555

[Anonymous No.9644640]

>>9643997

that's debateable, but what isn't debateable is that its contents (ideas, opinions, perceptions) are materially determined

[Anonymous No.9644650]

>>9644027

[Anonymous No.9644668]

>>9644591
I've already answered that in the thread.
If you wish to read start
here >>9643961
or here >>9644042
here's where the free will talk starts >>9644062

[Anonymous No.9644669]

the miserable thing is that you all think philosophers can be reduced to one easily sloganized idea when philosophy can in part be defined by the resistance to the sloganeering tendency of rhetoric

[Anonymous No.9644674]

>>9644669
People generalize.
Most of the time it's useful, but when it's not, we'll just have to live with it and hope it goes away.

[Anonymous No.9644681]

>>9644669
well what can philosophers be reduced to faggot?

[Anonymous No.9644682]

>>9644669
Totally agree

[Anonymous No.9644683]

>>9644681

why do you think reduction is desirable or even possible

stupid git

[Anonymous No.9644697]

>>9644650
What kind of dog is that?

[Anonymous No.9644708]

>>9643776
>People forget what Nietzche is trying to say with the ubermensch. But essentialy, it is suffering through the obsticles of oppression to become free.

Ya but even Nietzsche thought free-will was bullshit. And no "higher conscious" doesn't make you free. It makes you feel free. Determinists say it may look and feel free, but that's an illusion. You're post is just jibberish

[Anonymous No.9644710]

>>9644668
>>9644062
If I understand well, you support freewill because the neocortex can resist to the hippocampus? I'm not certain this is the best way to go for your case if you acknowledge both as determined by the physical realm.
You were beginning to talk about Freud, I can't really see how he would be accountable for freewill. Even at the end of a textbook-case analysis, the Ego takes underground movements on its behalf, that doesn't mean the Ego recovers the Id

[Anonymous No.9644713]

>>9644683
I don't. Reduction is inevitable to some degree, as you have clearly pointed out.

[Anonymous No.9644763]

>>9644710
Freud was a hint on there being more than one will driving our motivations.
Freewill and consciousness are synonymous to me (maybe not 100%). And consciousness can be seen as the merging of the previously mentioned collection of belligerent wills.
"Being more than the sum of its parts."
Most of the time we do not act on our free will. I just "believe" we have some form of control over those many wills.
The Amygdala and Hippocampus, or maybe call them "our primordial instincts", can overpower the consciousness for survival.

The fact is, we still don't know, and as long as we don't know how the brain works. I will believe in freewill. And if it ends up being an illusion, I'll kill myself in rebellion.
To me freewill is also only possible with high enough "intelligence", or something similar. I don't think most people have it, too stressed, too hungry, too angry, too afraid, etc. But once they truly had it, or there was a time they could have it.

[Anonymous No.9644866]

>>9644763
I was speaking about the cerebral realm only to dismiss it. I don't think that's the way to go if you want to defend the point of freewill, because the only interpretations that remains are then determinist.
It seems important for you so I won't really argue against, but I think you should re-read Freud about consciousness. There's indeed something that deals with the sensation of freedom (but one could have say power) in a well-leaded analysis, which indeed deals with belligerent tendencies in the Id which find better outcomes. Though, to call it "freewill" and immediately assimilate it to a consciousness is a bold step (even more when talking about intelligence). It's much more dynamic than that, as you may already feel it when you talk of consciousness as a merging.
It seems to me you too quickly fold too many concepts on each-others (freewill, freedom, intelligence, consciousness). De-folding those doesn't necessarily leads to despair, it was precisely Freud and Nietzsche's point to not believe the subject was a fictional atom

[Anonymous No.9644933]

>>9644866
I wasn't disagreeing.
Portion of freewill is clearly "subconscious" or the 'ego' and not just the super-ego.
A bit difficult to understand, I don't believe the fact that we make most decisions before we declare them, disproves "freewill". You could say freewill to me is the super-ego and the ego, creating a back and forth duality, or a "positive feedback loop" as some people say.
...Maybe put like this, reverse Freud's Ego and super-ego. The super-ego acts first (not before ID), then we organize that to change our ID, gradually. Or that they act together seemingly hand in hand (loop), this is the 'I'. Then freewill emerges from the sheer size and number of neurons firing at each-other with hyper-connectivity, imperfectly. At least don't imagine the ID, Ego and Super-ego as separate.

And I guess I'll repeat myself; this requires active focus, freewill is not automated.

[Anonymous No.9644949]

>>9644713

doesn't make it correct.

[Anonymous No.9644993]

>>9644933
I'm very confused by your interpretation of Freud's work, the instances you're talking about are absolutely not interchangeable, these are (sadly?) not modelling clay! Please read Freud again, he has a lot to give regarding this topic

[Anonymous No.9645002]

Would anyone care to define free will before this autism goes any further?

[Anonymous No.9645017]

>>9644032
Free will has still been debated and bad not been experimentally disproven. Saying your opinion is the truth because you don't like the possibility of it not being the truth is doing the same thing you're tying to call out.

[Anonymous No.9645027]

>>9645002
>>9644993
Ability to not chose, or to change the ID so it causes new impulses/drivers/motivations than those that was initially proposed. Most people just act on their impulses/drivers/motivations as if they were their own. The first ID you feel are never your own but come from genetics and culture. Repeat; freewill is when the consciousness changes the what the ID tries to make you do. The ID can overpower the ego. Most of the time they just work like clockwork, and there's only an illusion of choice. Point is, you can AT LEAST affect/warp your actions/choice, maybe not change them completely, if that's only as far as you wish to go.

[Anonymous No.9645036]

>>9645017
Free will is a claim. As far as we know, everything is the result of some kind of cause and effect, ie. reality is deterministic. To posit the existence of free will is to say that there exists something that violates what we consider to be one of the fundamental principles of reality. So it is not that anon that has anything to prove, it is you and your silly idea of non-causal entities existing within the bounds of causality. So chop chop, better get to work faggot.

[Anonymous No.9645042]

>>9645027
The ability of what? What posseses this ability? Hardmode: it can't be physical because it would be bound to the laws of causality.

[Anonymous No.9645068]

>>9645042
Well we know laws of causality are no longer absolute. There are things from nothing, there are things that change seemingly by themselves, and it is the fact that we have observed choice be truly random. At least random to our comprehension. Like people disobeying STP.
Like I said previously in thread. There are instances where our minds behave "uncertainty-like". Not literally that our brains are quantum computers, but that they SHARE TRAITS similar to quantum particles/waves/fields.
We have aspects dealing with choice that scientist are incapable of "predicting" so to say.

[Anonymous No.9645107]

>>9645068
Just because we cannot see laws does not mean that laws are not present. Apparent randomness =/= Inherent randomness. So are you talking about the quantum world? As far as I know your body still operates deterministically, so don't let all of that quantum babble muddy up your thinking any further. Just because your brain seems oh so spooky and mysterious to you, we still have no business tossing logic out. There is seriously no reason to defend free will. Free will is an idea that people already believe in before their critical facilities have developed, consequently, people will go to any length to defend it due to their emotional attachment to the idea. Worse yet, we see the all to common phenomenon of 'oh well quantum mechanics' used to justify virtually any idea that can't find its home in reality. And finally, on your level, randomness does not imply agency like free will and to imply such is genuinely fucking retarded. How long will it take you to get that through your skull?

[Anonymous No.9645142]

>>9645027
Sounds like wishful thinking. There's no reason to assume the feeling of choosing otherwise isn't also just a result of factors you have no control or awareness over, even when you feel like you're somehow trumping these and acting outside of them.

[Anonymous No.9645160]

>>9645107
Clearly "SHARE TRAITS" wasn't apparent enough.
Our ID changes constantly both cause world changes around us, and cause nutrition changes hormones.
Yet we can hold on to a previous 'ID' motivation even though new ones have emerged trying to make us change course.
We can resist, our urges, and change them through reason.
Our subconscious is just like all other animals, yet they follow "their IDs" while we can change ours. Somehow.
It's self-apparent to me that we exert some form of conscious will, when we truly try. This is also a reason a lot of science in area is flawed. Science deals in absolutes, it's black and white. I'm arguing "freewill" or whatever we should change it to. Is not absolute. It is not a dictatorship, either way.

[Anonymous No.9645162]

>>9645036
> As far as we know, everything is the result of some kind of cause and effect, ie. reality is deterministic.

I'll get to work once you even understand what you're defending lmao the greentext statement you made isn't even true.

[Anonymous No.9645186]

>>9645160
Call it a consensus of the mind.
Like a hive mind of the brains many numerous parts.

Tired of just repeating me self constantly in different words here m8es, good night.
I'll write an essay or something. See you in a few months, or next year.

[Anonymous No.9645189]

>>9644949
Doesn't make my first question any less justified.

[Anonymous No.9645192]

>>9645107

>we still have no business tossing logic out

honey you need to know what logic is and how to use it before you can speak its validity. nothing you've said follows coherently from what preceded it because you rely on unseen assumptions to make wild argumentative leaps, such as between the proposition that "we" have to keep logic to the lack of reasonable support for free will. nothing joins your premise to your conclusion.

[Anonymous No.9645202]

>>9645189

a reduction is only possible if it is a correct reduction, i.e. an explanation of X in terms of Y such that none of the content of X is lost or distorted by the explanation. i'm telling you such a reduction is impossible. go on making false reductions all you please. you're cheating yourself out of philosophy in doing so.

[Anonymous No.9645210]

>>9643230
> he thinks faggotry won't kill him with AIDS

[Anonymous No.9645234]

>>9645160
I was the one talking with you about Freud earlier. I seriously doubt there's any way to change the Id in Freud theory, it's only things coming out of it that will arrange differently given time.
What you call resisting our urges, a lot of animals can too, they're far from being simple being of reaction (and for a lot of those that live in complex societies, you can find norms, allowances, etc.). It seems to me you're trying to defend a concept of a "subject" which don't acknowledge the originality of "the ego is not the master in its own house". When you talk about resisting our own urges, it doesn't particularly strike me as freewill as first : this is exactly the role of the super-ego, and it's far from being nice regarding freedom (hence with the other replies why I was speaking about the necessity to read Freud again)

[Anonymous No.9645274]

>>9643230
>Listening to a pozzed turbofaggot

[Power to warp. No.9645298]

>>9645234
I was using ID and the Egos, more as a way to understand wtf I'm talking about, rather than specifically follow how Freud describes them.
I'd say there are more than 3 layers, layers might even be wrong word, well i guess there's about three layers if you think reptilianm mammal and human, or whatever, there are more aspects. We don't know yet, monks in mountains can regulate their body heat.

Now I've made my bed literally and about to lie down in it.
My ID is sending signals for me to go to sleep, it is making me tired, I have an urge to keep a night cycle, which I'm bad at, another urge compelling me to continue, the wish to continue feels stronger than going to bed, I adore reasoning, I feel dead when I do not reason, think this is why I hated studying, it occupies thought center of the mind.
Here is will, maybe not truly free, but it is not a motivation. Movement lies in the cerebral cortex right behind frontal lobe of reason, you don't need ID to move to bed, maybe that's why I have trouble falling asleep the ID dislikes my power to will thee body upon thine bed.

[Anonymous No.9645436]

>>9644610
You're kinda begging the question here. If you're gonna argue that everything is subject to an economy of the pleasure/reward, including your philosophy of just action, I might as well argue myself that everything derives from your philosophy of just action, including hedonist pursuits.

[Anonymous No.9645444]

>tfw thought free willy exists
>tfw nothing is ever free
>tfw paid the ultimate price

[Anonymous No.9645537]

>>9645444
W-what was the price?

[Anonymous No.9645569]

>>9645298

[Anonymous No.9645572]

>>9645298
>ID