2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 27, 2025
I think the simplest argument against it is that it cannot prove its claims other than making them tautologies. After all, I can claim whatever I want about people who sacrifice themselves *because they'll never be around to contradict me*.
So in the end, either their statements make some sort of sense to you, or they don't. But I tend to find them tautological, precisely because there never seems to be any way to do otherwise; they simply declare that whatever course of action a person undertook was more pleasurable than the alternative. And if they need to invoke some sort of "unconscious" drive to get around being contradicted, then so be it.
In this sense, I don't think of it as a philosophy. Rather it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. And that which cannot be falsified cannot be proven, either.
Comment by Choice-Box1279 at 27/01/2025 at 23:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don't think it's that incredibly far off from the determinism debate. Wouldn't that also be classified as having the same unfalsifiable nature. Over time with advances in philosophy and psychology the theories on determinism change based on these advances.
Like for example with data we have determined that there a lot of patterns that seem highly deterministic that help dispell free will absolutists' propositions.
Yeah at the end of the day it's currently impossible for it to be proven. Though as we have gotten more proofs of the impact of subconscious motivators (mainly androgens) doesn't that give it more credence.