0 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: The irony of determinism
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.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 22/08/2024 at 12:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
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.
My assertion in that context is not necessarily about a free will denier. What you are saying here is setting up the straw yourself by saying that I'm saying this. Nobody is talking about setting up a theocracy except the free will denier who **also** wants to change civil law. A perfect example of a free denier who does **not** want to change any law is the illusionist. Smilansky[1] is that guy for example. He would rather pretend we have free will than throw society into a state of turmoil.
1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/#IlluVsDisi
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.
This is a relativity reasonable critique. When I said the ruling class, I wasn't clear so I admit the error. I forgot that everybody doesn't see the corruption. Rather than go into any detail, I was speaking about de facto government as opposed to de jure government. My apologies.
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.
I disagree. The social contract implies some contract between the governed and the government. The terms of that contract can change under authoritarian rule only if the government unilaterally decides to change the terms. In contrast in the free state, the governed can resist. Resistance covers a broad spectrum but why would the governed choose to speak out if the government cannot be "tweeked" to be brought in line with the concerns of the governed? The government cannot take what we don't have. If we have no free will at all, I don't see how we can transition from a free state to an authoritarian state because the laws of physics already has totalitarian control. There is no freedom left for the government to take from the governed.