1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: The irony of determinism
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.
Comment by jk_pens at 22/08/2024 at 16:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
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
Ok, I misunderstood the breadth of your claim. I still find the idea that a "free will denier who **also** wants to change civil law" is *trying* to set up something similar to a theocracy to be suspect. I can buy the idea that this might happen as an unintentional side-effect, but you are imputing intent when it probably is not there.
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.
There's plenty of obvious corruption, and the fact that the de facto govt is different from the de jure govt is very concerning, but I am not following you as to how this has anything to do with determinism or the Big Bang, since (as I previously noted) those are not widespread viewpoints.
More broadly, as with the previous point, I am less willing to ascribe a motive or telos to these ideas; I they are mostly just consequences of our deepening understanding of the world.
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.
Simple example: I am choosing an ice cream flavor. The deterministic universe has fated it that my "will" is to choose chocolate. But I am the subject of a dictator who has banned chocolate upon pain of death, so I settle for vanilla which the universe has fated to be my second preference. The dictator has taken away my freedom of choice, and has forced me to ago against my will.