https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1eycjky/the_irony_of_determinism/
created by diogenesthehopeful on 22/08/2024 at 06:37 UTC
0 upvotes, 6 top-level comments (showing 6)
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/
Leucippus (440 B.C.E.) stated the first dogma of determinism, an absolute necessity.
> Nothing occurs by chance (maton), but there is a reason (logos) and necessity (ananke) for everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has often been asserted that there is no argument for determinism and such assertions are met with disagreements and downvotes but never a refutation because the argument doesn't exist for determinism. It isn't common practice to develop arguments against religious dogma because most people understand that religious dogma is a matter of faith. "You just have to have faith in the FSM because the FSM will save you. You will be redeemed."
I think the people who want to change the civic laws to reflect their take on moral responsibilty are trying to set up something similar to a theocracy. The only difference between this deterministic govenment and a theocracy is that they have replaced the FSM with the big bang. The irony is from the perspective of the pawn. He was taught to reject religion and replace it with something that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but is not a duck. In contrast the ruling class has found the way to preserve the so called divine right of kings by replacing the God fearing world with a deterministic universe. It is so engenious from the perspective of the ruling class and yet so sad from the perspective of the serf. His cognitive map has been shaped in such a way that he is being indoctrinated. He champions the very system that doesn't have his best interest at heart. I posted a poll and nobody on this sub seems to value the authoritarian state. However those who value their own freedom argue they have no free will to excercise the very freedom that they prefer. Maybe irony isn't the best word to use in this case, but the best stories often show irony and sometimes there is more truth in fiction than in non fiction. If that isnt ironic then I don't know what is.
Comment by mildmys at 22/08/2024 at 06:54 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I think determinists are just following the most natural observation that we make, every effect has an anticedent cause.
I'm not a determinist myself but it definitely is a very observationally intuitive position.
You roll a rock into another rock, the second rock will move.
Tip over a cup and the water spills.
Sorry to hear you got downvotes by the way, it comes with the territory of using a debate sub.
Comment by MarvinBEdwards01 at 22/08/2024 at 11:15 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What the heck is an FSM[1]? It would be nice if you spelled out an abbreviation once and followed it with the abbreviation in parentheses the first time you use it in your post. For example, "Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSM
Comment by spgrk at 22/08/2024 at 07:09 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
The question that philosophers consider is rarely about whether determinism is true. It is about whether if our actions are fixed under the circumstances, which would be the case if determinism were true, they could still be free. You have assumed that they can’t, and you seem completely convinced of this, to the point where you think that anyone who disagrees can’t be genuine.
Comment by Galactus_Jones762 at 23/08/2024 at 06:42 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What the…
Dude. There is serious discussion of metaphysics and just basic physics and logic…
…and then there is the appeal to consequences.
Are you accusing us of not considering the consequences when we analyze reality? And accusing us of not changing the way we see reality so that we can avoid “ironic” consequences?
I mean, thank you, I guess?
As a hard incompatibilist I don’t even think about determinism. To me that’s lower level freshman version of the free will skepticism I’ve come to master. There is no BDMR whether determinism is true or not. This is self evident. And your feelings, or the consequences of believing this have nothing to do with whether it’s true.
It’s valid to want to discuss the feelings and consequences about free will skepticism, but we ought not do it in the same sandpit where we decide it is true or not. This is a totally different discussion.
Even Dennett made this mistake. Played the Pragmatist card in his final hand. Just shows how serious this topic is, if even the big D couldn’t hold it together.
Comment by LokiJesus at 22/08/2024 at 08:15 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Is there an argument for free will?
Are you suggesting that the FSM or the big bang are not real?
Comment by jk_pens at 22/08/2024 at 12:02 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I think you are making an incoherent argument here for a few reasons.
1. I’m not sure there’s a single common goal of free will deniers, but “trying to set up something similar to a theocracy” is a straw man. It’s certainly not my goal.
2. When you say the ruling class has replaced god(s) with the Big Bang, I think you are grievously wrong for multiple reasons including: the deterministic view is a minority one, governments still rely heavily upon free will-informed notions of responsibility and justice, the common person would have no idea what you are talking about so there’s no way it would inform their worldview.
3. The freedoms that are lost in an authoritarian state are largely irrelevant from the perspective of free will. Your will could, in principle, be free, even if the range of feasible actions available to you is highly constrained by the authoritarian state.