Recent comments in /f/philosophy

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j22vegn wrote

Reply to comment by pokoponcho in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024

>What matters is t-1 moment before the first *choice*, the combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances was out of the toddler's control. And that combo made the toddler choose a banana over an apple.

No, that doesn't matter at all.

>So, why do we call it free will if the toddler had no control over choosing a banana or apple?

Because it's "them" acting in line with their desires, rather than them being forced or coerced into doing them. That's a big meaningful distinction people and society uses.

So let's use the example of whether a toddler decides to hit someone.

If in one example the toddler decides due to DNA and past experiences "outside their control" that they want to hit someone and then hits someone.

Vs. If a toddler due to DNA and past experiences "outside their control" decide that they don't want to hit someone, but someone promises them a chocolate if they hit someone and that they will get beaten up if they don't.

You would treat the toddler different depending on which. (The example probably works better using adults, but you get the point)

Basically the whole of morality and justice are based on this concept of compatibilist free will. Even if you deny that free will exists, you still would use the concept.

>A human's existence from conception to death is a sequence of moments -- seconds, milliseconds, and so on. Do we agree that up until some moment, a human cannot exercise a free choice? What free choice a newborn baby has?
>
>Can we also agree that up to the moment of the first manifestation of what we view as a free choice, the prior moment has a combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances that are out of the child's control?
>
>Each process and action has a beginning and end within a human's lifetime. So, what moment can we define as the beginning of free will?

There is no beginning. This whole analysis just makes no sense, since you aren't talking about what anyone really means by the term. You are talking about being God, not free will.

>In other words, can we define a moment when a person separates himself from a combo of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances?

They aren't different. You could say free will is just a property used when analysing deterministic systems of genetics and environments.

Again you are talking about libertarian free will, which is just incoherent and makes no sense. Libertarian free will DOESN'T EXIST. It makes no sense to talk about it or use such a definition.

1

bananachomper t1_j22vcpb wrote

Reply to Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

I suppose I think of life as a partial battle against entropy, but human nature goes into play with the structures of society and it’s expectations which turn people into self-selecting assholes instead of the harder route of being a good human being, because it goes against the game that life proves as best for many groups of humans. Capitalism and individualism goes against the humanity we all want to be but actively discourages. Edit: and to add to this to explain my understanding of this post and create more connection to the article in question, I was just discussing the Mandela Effect with my partner and how pop culture and group collusion affects our understanding of reality which in turn is affected by pop culture, a more intentional/unintended affect of satire AND group collusion.

1

Rote515 t1_j22uxoj wrote

Reply to comment by who519 in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

Sure, but who cares? You're missing the point of basically all nihilist based philosophy. Why is Greed bad, what is "bad" why do we care if we do something "bad". There is no "good" or "evil" is the fundamental argument of nihilists, sure it hurts someone, who cares? If that someone doesn't matter why do we care that it hurt someone. Why is causing pain "evil" why do we even care if it is "evil" you're 1 step to high on the ethics chain.

1

malament-hogarth t1_j22ujlc wrote

Reply to comment by snash222 in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

“Because of personal freedom at all costs” -Sartre, the individual

Sartre would argue that the instabilities that arise in human relationships are a form of inter-subjective bad faith.

In more seriousness, because people are sick as all get out. With the invention of psychotronics we are getting back to torture, now just like coward rapists.

2

Knale t1_j22lzrd wrote

Reply to comment by CosmoKid1 in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

Great question! I wrote my college thesis on this!

Kierkegaard saw the absurd(the inherently ridiculous relationship between the ambivalence of the universe and humanity's desire to find meaning) and thought that faith(in god specifically) was a way to reconcile these opposing ideas.

Camus on the other hand feels that faith is a sort of "easy way out"(grossly oversimplifying) and that in his mind, the best way to approach the absurd is with a full throated utter and complete acceptance of it. Face the absurdity with your head held high and laugh in its face, and then just try and be a good person. Realize that we're all in this together and really other people is what we have to make it all worth it.

Happy to answer other questions on this topic! Hope it helps!

20

Diogenic_Seer t1_j22jzp7 wrote

Reply to comment by CosmoKid1 in Life is a game we play without ever knowing the rules: Camus, absurdist fiction, and the paradoxes of existence. by IAI_Admin

When you break it down, I think philosophy is mostly metacognition. Psychology is still just as much philosophical as it is scientific.

There aren’t really huge difference between the three thinkers. Kierkegaard kind of needed Christianity as a coping mechanism.

Nietzsche genuinely did kind of break himself with stress. I don’t necessarily buy that he “went crazy.” I really feel like you can’t fully separate his alienation from German culture and Germany’s drift into fascism.

Camus forwards romanticism as a coping mechanism. He better understood science because of the time period he came from.

He was skilled at incorporating his philosophy into political and artistic results. I’d argue Camus had slightly more similarities with Doestoevsky than Kierkegaard.

There has been increasing information that he might have been politically assassinated by the KGB: https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/05/albert-camus-murdered-by-the-kgb-giovanni-catelli

A lot of political assassinations happened in the 1960s.

5