a thread for mundane ironists

[b]Bianco Luno

The price of clarity.
The number of premises of my life, as though it were a good argument, are few and too elegant to be undangerous.
If I lost my cat or O. I would come to a conclusion.[/b]

Let’s not leave out the value of clarity.

Eventually, of course, we lose everything. The cat, for example, is almost certainly gone. And O. is approaching 70.

You can find another cat though. Or another philosophy.

I don’t know that violence ever actually happens.

How many different ways are there to understand violence and things that don’t happen. Even when they do.

[b]Bianco Luno

“Is there anything that makes you happy or at least content?”
Humming seems to have this effect on me.
Whether it was the drone of an oscillating fan on a steamy Gulf Coast afternoon of my childhood as I lay on the cool linoleum floor, or Glenn Gould’s vocal accompaniment to keyboard Bach, or the irregular motor sounds my cat makes sitting on my chest… Wittgenstein’s feeling of being ‘safe’ (for the time being) and still, in a world of tyrannical displacement and alarm…
“But is it possible that a purposeful human act be pleasing to you?”
No, I can’t right away think of any.
“Yours is a passive, one could say, negative vision of what is humanly possible.”
One does say that.
“Do you feel this is sufficient, comprehensive enough? That maybe more might be demanded or expected of the world?”
The world brazenly volunteers so much, I can’t imagine what might still be held out for.
“The things you mentioned seem so undeliberate, incidental, auxiliary to the main business of…”
These sorts of ornament offer me some pleasure.
“Would a useful, constructive act ever?”
To the extent it failed and became beautiful.
“It seems your attitude would curtail investment in the world. You seem always to be cutting your losses.”
Goodness abounds.
My losses?
My shortcoming is that my own industry is too susceptible to a seriousness that real accomplishment will never confirm.
Confining my attention to the few steps ahead of me, I notice progress, but the feeling that purposeful movement is somehow desirable is undercut by a glance at the ever receding horizon.
Even this dialogue with you, as far as I appear to be defending a point of view, is frivolous; it is sophistry.
“But you once said that the point of life lay in focusing on those few steps in front of you.”
I did.
?
It was a lament, as, for instance, Aristotle’s moral philosophy, interpreted in the best light.[/b]

You need to read between the lines and imagine a purpose that anyone might bring to a discussion that begins with Wittgenstein’s feeling of being safe and ends with Aristotle’s moral philosophy.

Sure, they can claim to know, but basically for all they know this claiming is like your leg jumping when the doctor does a knee reflex test.

I don’t have an argument for the best versions of these. I have repeatedly said that ‘physical’ is a meaningless term and also that we are in the middle of the history of science, not the end, so final proclamations seem weak to me.

Basically the determinist has to argue that there are two possibilities: random and completely controlled events. Or what is basically a combination in stochasitic processes. We use deduction from here and decide free will is not supported by either. Fine. But science has thought it understood the range of possibilities before and then found out this was not the case.

Sure, the determinist could ARGUE like this. But as social mammals I see no reason for them too. And, in fact, non-determinists, for example religious ones, have justified rape either openly or indirectly with victim blaming coded messages.

It’s just not my experience that determinists are less sympathetic here. In the abstract, they could be, using some line like you say, but I don’t find that they do. Whatever the weakness of the rationalist determinist, they seem less likely to certain kinds of mental manipulation - such as the kind that can justify rape.

I find that most people do not actually try to see what ideas do in situ. What is actually happening, not what should happen given the words in the mind and the logic in the mind, etc.

I find Stanford’s online philosophy resource generally very clear. Here is their article on compatibilism.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
However I suspect that what you really mean, or will end up meaning, is how compatibilism will satisfy your concerns, even once you ‘get’ it. It probably does not.

But notice what your focus is on here: your focus is on how you feel about the whole situation. You have not argued that you would no longer strive to be kind. Or to put this in determinist terms. You are not arguing that believing in determinist would CAUSE you to be more cruel or less caring. And this was the issue. I absolutely agree about the emotional effects of the non-existence of free will, but that I would end up being meaner, I don’t think so.

So we change the language into determinist. I don’t think that if I was convinced determinism was the case, this would cause me to treat children or anyone else less well. How bout you?

I interact with others ambiguously, precariously. I see good reasons for endorsing many conflicting sides in most moral and political issues. I make my leap knowing that, had things been different in my life, I might not have.

As, in other words, an ironist.
[/quote]
YOu mean if you became convinced determinism was true you would no longer be an ironist, no longer see conflicting sides in moral and political issues, etc.?

[b]Bianco Luno:

Glibness indicates the liar.
But how can this be when it is all our ears can pick up?—when whatever we would call the opposite of a lie is heard only at frequencies within the range of beasts, small children and the occasional idiot?
What Kaspar Hauser (in Herzog’s film) gathered from the sound of the wind in the grass, a rolling apple, the testing puzzles of an examining academician, and in the tinny hammers of an ill-tuned clavichord.[/b]

We all have our own such intimate liaisons with the things we hear. Fortunately [or unfortunately] what is true is always what we think we hear. Even this.

It used to be like the sun which would blind you but now it seems like the horizon which you must either see as beautiful, in itself, or avoid looking at altogether and never think that it is some appalling place you personally will visit, howevermuch it is our destiny.

Death, perhaps? Or life?

For all any of us know. To wit:

That is basically my point to volchok: just because I don’t have a definitive argument now doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And science is just beginning to explore this particular characteristic of the human brain. And the brain is surely the most complex matter around. Sans God.

How does consciousness grapple with explaining what consciousness itself is? What does it even mean for “I” to know this?

Yes, the determinist has to argue this. As for a random universe I simply cannot wrap my mind around it. Even the quantum folks are still baffled over this. And that, perhaps, is just in this universe.

But doesn’t reason enter into it here only as an inherent manifestation of matter evolving into it per the immutable laws of matter? The “mental” is merely matter that has been manipulated [molded] by nature into imagining it is not manipulated at all. That it is “free” to choose its own way.

And non-determinists like me root rape and our reactions to it in dasein—in daseins rooted [in unimaginably complex ways] in nature intertwined [in unimaginably complex ways] in nurture.

I get stuck on the idea that, given determinism, to choose one thing as opposed to something else is just an illusion. What is happening actually is what actually must happen. “I” have nothing to do with it other then in having acquired matter in my brain that evolved to the point I can note this. But I cannot not note this.

But where does how I think about the whole situation stop and how I feel about it begin? Or the other way around? I can imagine someone raised in an environment where being kind and good [at least to each other] is the functional norm. But I can also imagine an environment in which you come to assume it is basically a dog eat dog world and being kind and good is a weakness you just cannot afford.

These things are always situated [for each of us] in a particular world rooted in a particular time and place. Evolution [human biology] provides us with the capacity to be either kind or cruel. Does it provide us with the capacity to choose one over the other? Does it provide us with the capacity to encounter new experiences, new relationshipos, new points of view…and change our minds?

Yes. But to what extent is any of this done autonomously?

I don’t understand the “determinist terms” here. If determinism is true, I am kind or cruel per nature’s design. Just as the tides ebb and flow per nature’s design. What is the difference other than, unlike the tides, I embody the illusion of being able to freely choose one over the other?

To wit:

You:

If I was utterly convinced determinism was the case, I would not then decide to act meanly to children.

Me:

Here you lose me. If you are “convinced determinism is the case” then you are deciding only what you must decide. It’s only the illusion of choice.

If I was absolutely convinced of determinism – if science demonstrated it beyond all doubt – I would think: I may be kind toward children, I may be cruel. But my choice to be one or the other is mine only in the sense that a lightbulb chooses to be on or off depending on the position of the switch.

In some ways that might comfort me, in other ways it might not. But so what? My reaction is also just a manifestation of the ineluctable law of matter.

Again, “compatibilism” here is still illusory to me. The bottom line: what happens must happen.

Yes, but I would be like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s terminator. I would make choices but only as I was programed to by nature.

Some “choice”, eh?

[b]Bianco Luno

“But in everything you are trying to eschew some responsibility.”
And why not?
It is you against me.
The intervening order that your notion of responsibility supports is what I seek to topple.
“To what end?”
The End in general: I want to act, in all respects, as instinctively as you, with the same disregard for ends in general.
I am compelled to face you and view every truth you do, but what is in the shadow of the light emanating from your eyes is what I see.
My eyes are intimate with darkness; it is what I see as clear as day.[/b]

I don’t know the extent to which this all takes place inside his head. I don’t know, in other words, the extent to which it has anything to do with the world he lives in. And the extent to which that has anything to do with the world I live in. What do I know of his own enigmatic truths?

So, how do I know if this exposes it or disguises it [all the more] as something else?

Over against Hume and the moral sense theorists, I can vouch for a depravity of my own: this is how I understand Nero and the crowd of cheering Romans or the teasing mob at the suffering of an animal.
Just as crowds can view public suffering with ecstatic pleasure to the point where you wonder where human sympathy could so thoroughly hide, there arises in me a rancor at the sight of the frenzied horde at some athletic event.
Witnessing such unbridled public pleasure elicits an ugly bile from my guts and installs a kind of murderousness in my eyes.
The injustice of its vastness—that pleasure could be anything but furtive—is intolerable to me.
The mechanism of empathy is as fully capable of operating inversely.

What makes sense to you morallly? Isn’t it always what does not make sense to others? And the mob mentality is more a psychological construct. And that has been millions of years in the making. As has empathy and it’s inverse.

Me:

NO, not for all any of us know. That description comes directly from their beliefs. Their beliefs essentially support the idea that their acts of claiming are like that.

That is not the case for all of us.

Yes. I think there is a great urge out there to silence anything that implies mystery, confusion, potential large scale paradigmantic problems, etc. So scientific knowledge gets spouted as if science has finished.

There are Eastern Practices that have an empirical process - one requiring a rather huge investment of time - to investigate this issue.

Though the QM universe is probablistic. Hence there would be many kind of order and not the chaos of the random. Some things are (vastly) more likely than other things in QM.

Yes, in a physicalist determinism the mental is really matter with new emerged but still physical and determined qualities.

I suppose one could describe my beliefs around it this way.

The man - I assume - iambiguous - that body will do this and not that. The causes may include calculated preferences. In a physicalist determinism these preferences and the process for arriving at them - which would be in that conception some mixture of nature and nuture - is of course determined. But that body cannot be taken out of the equation. It is not like the whole of you has no effects, that is what V is trying to point out. You have effects, you go through a process of choosing (and many sub-processes of deciding, for example what is true, good, etc.) but these are all determined, yes. Whether consciousness has any effect, the conscious ‘I’ is an issue within physicalism - see epiphenomenalism.

But yeah, sure, if determinism is correct, you choices tomorrow were well determined already in the first seconds of the Big Bang. Of course, QM says they were not, but QM, so far, does not offer a version of free will. Unless, perhaps, the self/consciousness hops from one universe to another, riding different bodies along different lines of choice.

Sure, and any theory based on dasein will say the same.

Determinism doesn’t eliminate nature. It seems like in the paragraph previous to this last you focus on nurture, culture and then in the second express a concern about the loss of nature in determining actions. Well, the development of new things seems to be determined, if determinism is correct. And humans, unlike other animals, can as individuals change due to an incredibly wide range of factors. We tend to have more flexible learning systems.

Yes, the nature in you and outside you. To put it in crass determinist terms, your genetic make up and the stimuli from the environment.

WE don’t know that waves do not have consciousness or sense of choice.

Sure, but it seems to me part of your concern was that if determinism was true people would be more cruel. Your rape example - or was it mine. I do not think this is the case. I understand how the idea depresses you, but I don’t see yet why determinism being true and/or your belief in it would make you be less moral.

Yes.

No, notice your confusion here. You would have already been doing this all along. I understand how it is a depressing idea, but you have seemed several time to have implied that it would cause you to be different ethically, or here around irony.

Try to separate the two ideas: in one we are talking about how your view of what was happening would change. In the other we are talking about how you would act differently. I understand that determinism means certain things, but it seems like you are asserting that what it means would end your being an ironist and perhaps cause you to be more likely to be cruel. I don’t see any support for this.

Some “choice”, eh?
[/quote]

If determinism is true, everything we think, feel, believe, do etc. is just a knee jerk reflex. It’s natural. It’s natural in that it comes wholly from nature. The fact that some don’t believe it is doesn’t change that. Our problem is we don’t seem to know for certain if this is true.

Then I am not clear on what might be construed as a non-physicalist determinism. If minds are a kind of matter and matter is a kind of energy and all three interact in space-time per the immutable laws of nature then this entire exchange we are having is only as it could have been. “I” either have some measure of autonomy here or “I” don’t.

In other words:

I understand that I have effects. I understand that I choose what I do in order to generate these effects. But if I could not not have chosen these things how is that really different from the effects falling dominoes have on each other?

Two scenarios:

I choose to shoot John and he dies. Or, John gets drunk, passes out on the beach and, as a result of the incoming tide, he drowns. I am not like the tide in that I chose to shoot John. But I am exactly like the tide in that I could not have chosen not to do what I did. Either way it has been determined by the laws of nature that John be dead.

Or, maybe, as you suggest below, the tides themselves harbor the illusion of choosing to ebb and flow.

You say:

Which is why some subscribe [cling?] to the idea that it is not correct. They have a deep-seated intuitive sense of “choosing” between alternative effects.

Determinism here would seem to be a way in which to describe the methodology of nature. Nature unfolds as it was determined to unfold given that all the “stuff” in nature interacts in accordance with laws that do not exclude us. Nurture then is just the way nature unfolds [must unfold] for each of us postpartum. Dasein therefore is merely something I was unable not to embrace as an alternative approach to understanding why I chose what I did. It’s just the illusion I harbor about my alleged autonomy.

If determinism is true cruelity and kindness would seen to be interchangable. John raped Mary. John stopped Joe from raping Mary. What difference does it make if Joe could not choose freely to do one thing rather than another? We can react as we do…and the legal system can prevail and John or Joe gets locked up. But none of this could have been otherwise.

And here is where it really gets surreal [for me]: What does it mean for a conscious mind to know this when it could not itself have known otherwise?

Mind is the mystery here. It always has been. Why? Because, volchok’s declamations aside, it really is matter of an entirely different sort.

Unless, of course, it’s not.

My being more or less moral is like the tides ebbing or flowing. It is what it is because it could not have been otherwise. And my being more or less depressed can only be understood in the same thing. If determinism is true it happens because it could not not happen.

And you and I and volchok knowing this in the manner in which we do is the only manner in which we could have known it.

I don’t understand this. I can only be different ethically if I have the autonomous capacity to choose to be cruel or kind. And this will be embedded largely in dasein. But then others who are also able to choose autonomously [as dasein] will reconfigure the world such that the ripple effect might impact on me such that I choose to change my mind.

If determinism is true everything that happens, like my reaction to everything that happens, will simply be what happens. End of story. Nature prevails as it must. And not even nature has a choice about it. It’s just that somehow matter has evolved into consciousness—consciouness able somehow to be cognizant of this. But not able to freely change it.

My view of something can change. And, as a result, I change my behavior. But, if determinism is true, they are just different sides of the same coin.

If, for example, volchok were to reconfigure his argument and suddenly I saw why I was wrong to embrace the one I do now, that is only what would [could] have happened anyway. He figured it out before I did. But he could not have done otherwise.

Or maybe I will reconfigure my argument about dasein and ironism and he will suddenly see the light and admit that he is wrong.
But, in the end, to me, if determinism is true, this is really no different for all practical purposes than the tides ebbing and flowing.

yes, but that is not getting the context of what I wrote. Given that we do not know, you and I, we can only look at the various positions. One irony of the determinist position is they are basically saying they have no idea what their own real motivations are for believing what they believe -including the belief in determinism. This is not true for people advocating other positions. The position itself should entail an admission that they really cannot know if they are being logical in arriving at their opinion determinism is the case.

See?

Of course if determinism is the case, we are all in that position. But from our current vantage, you and I, we see different people advocating different positions. We do not know which is true. We can however note this irony about the determinist position.

a non-physical determinism simply means that one does not believe that all substrance is physical, but still you believe all events are determined entirely by past ones. Calvinists would be an example of such a belief system. They did believe in a soul that had an afterlife, but they believed, given God’s omnicience, that this afterlife was already decided long ago.

In other words:

It’s not different.

I will try this one more time, then I will give up.

As far as I can tell you have claimed two unpleasant results of determinism being the case:

  1. I am just dominoes, everything that will happen could only have happened and nothing else. The belief in/acceptance of the fact of determinism affects my mood negatively because determinism means…
  2. People have no reason (or even less) to be nice/moral, since everything is natural. The belief in/acceptance of the fact of determinism affects how people will ACT negatively because determinism means…(all acts are natural, etc)

I utterly agree that one is the case if determinism is true. At least for you and me and likely many other people.
I disagree that 2 is the case.

I keep trying to show why 2 is not the case and or I ask you to demonstrate 2 is the case.
You respond to this by focusing on 1, most of the time. You defend 1, in response to my questioning about 2.

I have acknowledged that one can make arguments based on determinism that everything, every action is natural. But I argued against this being a concrete result of the belief in determinism. I do not find it to be the case that determinists are more prone to immoral behavior and I think that given that we are social mammals that even in the absence of a notion of free will, there are plenty of causes to make us be good.

Sure.

Obviously. Mammals minds can change, including our minds. This happens. No one disputes this in the practical sense of a kind person can end up being cruel and vice versa.

Yes, if D is true.

Yes, if D is true.

I don’t know how to determine that.

Motivation itself would seem to be just an illusory frame of mind here. To understand it we would need to understand what “motivates” matter itself to interact as it must. Why this set of laws and not some other? Yet, in doing so, we would in turn be “motivated” by the same laws.

How can this be explained other than in the manner in which we must think we understand it?

My position is this: I think “I” have some measure of understanding and control [as dasein] in chossing among alternative explanations. But I don’t have a convincing argument [even to myself] to counter volchok’s speculation about mind being matter and matter, in being the same “stuff”, being rooted in the laws of nature.

My argument is that mind is a kind of matter that has never existed. And that, among its seeming properties, is this intuitive sense that “I” am able to choose among alternative explanations. And, finally, that science is in its infancy in understanding human consciousness.

What is ironic then for me are those determinists huffing and puffing to blow my house down when, like big bad wolf and the three little pigs, we are all up on the same stage, our strings being pulled by nature.

It’s theatre of the absurd:

John murders Jane as he must. We react to this as we must.

Then:

John is caught, tried and convicted – or not – as he must. John is executed – or not – as he must. Or John escapes from prison – or not – as he must.

Everything, everything everything: only as it must be.

Is this the world we live in?

Well, Calvinism has always struck me as particularly absurd theatre. What we choose to do on earth is merely an embodiment of God. I think: Why do good when the fate of my soul has already long ago been decided. But then I do good or bad only in accourdance with an omniscient and omnipotent point of view anyway.

Huh?

Obviously: I’m missing something here.

People have a reason but they could not not have chosen a reason other than the one that they have.

That’s the part I get “stuck” on.

I can think, “I love children and I would never harm them”. Or, I can think, “I hate children and fuck them if they get in my way.”
But what I can’t do [per determinism] is freely choose to embrace one point of view rather than another. Or, given contingency, chance and change, autonomously change my mind.

However, what people who reject determinism have is a reason to believe they can [in ways not fully understood] choose among alternative manners in which to think and feel and behave.

And that is when I introduce them to dasein: to limitations in what we can know about ourselves and the value judgments we choose.

The tricky part for me is always this: we can think about it one way or the other but we can’t know for sure if the way we think about it is freely chosen or, even if it is, is the right way in which to think about it.

Here you come the closest to nudging me into understanding your point. I see it…but I don’t. It just keeps eluding me.

[Like trying to truly grasp Einsteins space/time continuum]

Anyway, thanks for plugging away at it. There are just those things I can’t fully wrap my mind around. And “compatibilism” is one of them.

Still, determinist are [to me] no less dasein. They choose or don’t choose cruelty over kindness because [as with non-determinists] the life they lived [and the manner in which they have come to understand it] predisposed them to one sort of thinking/feeling/doing rather than another. But, again, given contingency chance and change, their point of view can evolve. But: is our perception of “contingency, chance and change” itself rooted firmly in the laws of matter?

[b]Bianco Luno

To the extent our sentiments are educable they cease to be ours.[/b]

Sentiments, surely. Though not other things. Dasein is either relevant or it is not.

But untrained, unfettered, “in the moment”, they are not then ours either.
They belong properly to that force acting through us to which we sometimes even take pride in abdicating responsibility.
The mother of all mothers.

But it might we argued that “in the moment” they come closer to being ours. And that mothers can always abort them later. And that abdicating or not abdicating responsibility is neither here nor there.

Yet this rancor at least is alive beside the withering thickness of the air at a wedding, a celebration, a party, a line of people waiting to vote, any public gathering that isn’t to hang someone.

True, but the unbearable lightness of being will always be snuffed out one way or the other. If only in embracing it. Thickly even.

[b]Bianco Luno

I drove my electric car in a politically correct neighborhood parade for children.
The theme was ecological.
The children dressed like recycling bins, bottles and cans.
I was invited because my car was cute and supposed to be emblematic of some higher social responsibility.
The hope was to tattoo the little consciousnesses with a set of ideals to last the ages.
I had begun to worry when on my way home from the fifteen minute parade one kid threw a rock at my car, relieving my concern.[/b]

One kid apparently becomes a new theme. You have yours, they have theirs. And the beat goes on.

As far as I can tell, there is no obligation to counter speculation. Speculation is generally held to bear the onus of showing it is not speculation - though this is an appeal to popularity on my part, the popularity in question is present also amongst the determinist crowd, he writes with a dash of irony.

Matter is not a word with any limited content. It just means verified as real. And we are likely not finished with verifying things are real and stuffing them in that category regardless of their qualities.

Yes.

yes, that irony seems to be one that is missed.

In another thread one determinist wrote how philosophy is about truth, not things that make us feel warm and fuzzy. As if there could be no emotional motivations for hating ideas of free will, or being drawn to determinism, or of having no self (let alone a soul) etc. The implicit idea is that the mentally brave can face the truth and have no tempermental reasons for their beliefs. (and hidden in there is something so close to a claim that they are really FREE while those they disagree with are determined by their emotions that I cannot see the difference. In fact despite the fact that I can laugh at the irony of this, I have to avoid this poster, mostly, because the size of the blind spot and the rage behind his posts is so unpleasant.)

It seems like what you are missing here is that people don’t necessarily 1) say what they really mean 2) connect to their emotions 3) make sense 4) stay consistent 5) avoid talking themselves into all sorts of stuff for reasons they don’t want to notice.

We’re in a transitional phase - probably always have been - but one dealing with issues like this one. Science is moving to the center in a lot of lives. We are in a period of reaction against the monotheisms. The pagans and indigenous people were long ago dismissed by the combined might of the technocrats and the monotheisms. Now the monotheisms are being rejected in the West by a larger %. They see false dilemmas everywhere, and must close any door they see as leading to irrationalism or supernaturalism or loss of a certain kind of mental control. I have sympathy for both their anger and their generally denied fear. The monotheisms were pretty damaging. so they respond in hard cold ways to anything that reminds them of the monotheisms - and sometimes other ways of thinking, which can even mean, thinking like a woman, or what they think this is like.

They are like a cold, harsh, very angry light, that wants to be certain and express as certain, and do not realize how much they resemble what they hate.

Sadly, it is like a chip of that light has been long lodged in my soul. So I sometimes have ‘discussions’ with them so that I can understand what that chip is doing to me.

The determinists seem convincing by way of noting how all the scientific evidence points to mind as matter interacting with other minds as matter in accordance with the laws of physics. In other words, the “all the same stuff” premise.

All I can do then is note [as I did with volchok] this from wiki:

The…studies described below have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions about certain kinds of “free will”. It is worth noting that such experiments - so far - have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and may not have direct bearing on free will decisions made (“thoughtfully”) by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger).

Again, we all have this deep-seated intuitive sense that somehow “I” have something to do autononously with the choices “I” make. But we don’t know how to fully explain that. I agree that determinism seems to be a reasonable assumption. I just point out the implications of that.

The more you watch science documentaries on matter qua energy in space qua time, the more you come to realize just how profoundly problematic “existence” really is. For example, it is estimated that, given the amount of “dark matter” in the universe, only a small fraction of all matter is actually able to be seen at all.

But any number of determinists keep huffing and puffing as though none of this were true at all. The science seems to be on their side but we have barely begun to understand what that means for “free will”.

I’ve been over and over this with folks like volchok. There is considerable comfort to be had in reducing everything we think, feel and do down to necessities inherent in nature. Especially when we “fuck up”. No one can really be blamed for anything.

But there is also considerable bewilderment as well.

But either reaction seems equally necessary in a determined world.

I think this is true of most who embrace scientism. Science becomes the new God in that everything eventually gets reduced down to it. But if everything is subsumed in science then that includes everyone. And if that is true then nothing we think or feel or do is explicable by way of being able to choose freely what are the correct rather than the incorrect conclusions. It’s all interchangable when it comes to huffing and puffing. If volchok is right it is as it must be. If I am wrong it is as it must be. How can I not not be wrong if my freedom is illusory—if I am just one more component of nature acting in accordance with what must unfold?

But what does that really say about the world we live in? That’s the part some determinists just shrug off.

Fortunately, for them, they have no choice. Not even when choosing the way they do.

There’s a lot of marginilized stuff that indicates this is not all that is going on, at the least.

I cannot imagine a more likely situation for hindsight bias than where one asserts that everything is caused by what came before it.

And so have I. Note the rage this elicits. Either that what is being said is obvious or wrong because though they are utterly determined they somehow also know why they think the things they do.

I can’t really get too upset at such a refined level of abstraction, given the problems I have to deal with.

That’s on potential emotional reason for liking determinism. another would be, if not rigid causation, then what, and the fear of that unknown.

Or if one truly believes in determinism, where does the urge to convince others it is the case come from? Clean up your own goddam house before going door to door like a Jehovah’s witness. Glass houses and all that.

And then if they do not believe they even exist…

Not that I hear much public policy suggestion making from this stance. I mean, debts, for example…

[b]Bianco Luno:

“Mommie bought her textbooks here.”
She, the very mommie in question, says to her boy in the bookstore.
Not ‘I’ but ‘mommie’, as though this eminence could not address directly.
Mommie this and mommie that until one day the boy thinks to rape a mommie-type whom he never learned to apprehend as a ‘you’, a subject with a consciousness to penetrate: the body of this self-distancing object having to suffice.[/b]

Sounds like a personal problem. But it just goes to show how deeply problematic these threads can go.

There is enough stuff here for both sides to claim victory. What perturbs some folks though is the refusal on my part to pick one side over the other. As though this were the equivalent of solving a simple arithmetic problem.

But are the ocean tides ebbing and flowing interchangable with the ebb and flow of folks from Hitler’s death camps…or from Pol Pot’s killing fields? Is this really all just the same stuff obeying the same laws of nature?

It would seem to be different…but not in any way that would really matter come judgment day.

Yes, they can become quite incensed when you refuse to embrace what you had absolutely no real choice but to reject.

And I don’t get how they don’t get that part.

Or, as you note, they come into venues like this one with the “urge to convince others” of their own point of view—as though they felt it was important to choose to do this. Like they chose this particular crusade when there are so many other things they could have chosen to do instead.

Isn’t the irony here obvious?

Or, again, is it something that I am missing?

Well, from my little perspective that’s silly. From any of a number of perspectives. Our limited knowledge, the lack of consensus, the various reasons one might not want to commit (especially in a not clear situation) and so on.

Just to press on all assumptions. We do not know where choice begins in the world. Up into the 60s it was controversial in science to consider animals experiencers or as having emotions, cognition, intentions, etc. Why should we assume that even more of nature is likewise being discriminated against and in fact makes choices, but in ways and perhaps over time periods longer or different than ours. So even if it is all the same, that doesn’t rule out free will.

And note: we do know that there is a huge bias against nature (outside humans) in the West. So huge that any human associated with nature - blacks, women - was not considered free, sentient, etc. There is a vast homocentric bias in the West and Western science is still extricating itself from the biases of Judao-christianity and Greek philosophy.

Well put. that irony is not missed and does not mitigate over time the rage.

Perhaps only they are determined. :laughing:

And one was so angry that anyone took other ideas seriously it led to a rant condemning the forum. There are now a couple of guys in a mad tizzy that anyone could express ideas not supported by current science IN A PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION FORUM.

I think they took a wrong turn somewhere.

I seem to be missing it also.

I can get enraged at a domino - or at least a household appliance, even a hammer that hit my finger. I can. I do. I even let myself indulge in this anger since it hurts no one and feels better if I just let it flow through me. But after, I realize how silly this anger was. I am even, on rare occasion, mature enough to mention this humorous trait of mine to others. To admit it, that is.

I am still waiting for this domino to fall in their logical minds.

Still, I don’t know how to eliminate the arguments of those who do not share my own. On the other hand, sometimes I don’t share my own either.

For example, I think of a large number in my head: seven hundred and sixteen trillion, nine and twelve billion, four hundred and six thousand, five hundred and one.

I think: why that one? It all seemed to pop into my head spontaneously, mechanically. And here I come closest to imagining everything else might too.

I can only think it is necessity they are after. That feeling of being certain. Also, it is comforting to imagine we are released from all responsibility for our lives. Things happen because they must happen. We are all only pawns in nature’s “game”.

This is especially consoling when there is a big gap between the way our life is and the way we want it to be instead.

[b]Bianco Luno

But since blame can hardly attach to a mommie, no accusation is dared here.
For all the difference it makes, we’ll say,
she merely sets the stage for the dissolution of the race, in which the principals—the catalysts of responsibility—ordinarily, more constitutionally than historically, are men.
Why don’t mommies teach their baby boys what it is they want when they are in the singular position to do so?
It cannot be that they are too young to understand, for when they reach that age, if ever, they will be proof against any psychic incursion from her side.
It is then or never.
And it is not a question of understanding in any event: she is in the potent position of laying the foundation of what he will later come to call ‘understanding’.
Almost invariably, her mothery egoism prevails.
This, her boy, will be no other woman’s ever.
It would require some loss of her power over him now so that other women may one day find him more accessible.
Unenfranchised elsewhere, for her, the boy becomes the tool of her vengeance.
She wreaks violence this way, telegraphically.
So it is not true that, as Marguerite Duras says, most men are homosexual under the veneer of socialization.
Certainly, they act as though they were; they show too little interest in the subjectivity of women.
But in fact, and less dramatically, they are generally bisexual in some measure.
(The pure extremes of homosexuality and heterosexuality are appropriately rare.
Their bisexuality is patent, though compartmentalized; as appreciative of the female body as they are charmed by its emotional effusions, but observe that, at the same time, they prefer the male mind—and they are, as trained, disconcerted to find them ever in one being, and would just as soon not.[/b]

Mommies and men. Nature and nurture. All tangled up in black and blue. All tangled up in Freud and Jung and Reich and R.D. Laing.

And, maybe, B.F. Skinner?

Then Kinsey, Masters and Johnson and…Dr. Ruth?

Or should we skip all that and read the stuff that Otto Weininger wrote?