Excellent quote my friend!
^^yes I cried when the tightrope walker touched Zarathustra’s hand in gratitude.
I dislike when quotes try to “teach” you something, I find quotes useless in teaching you anything unless you know the context under which it was written. Therefore, I found a quote that stated a specific fact and went with it.
People would rather believe in what is benificial to them, even if it wrongminded.
ask yourself, what to do you gain from believing in determinism, other than a superior viewpoint. How does that viewpoint HELP you.
For those who believe in free will, the ones I know anyway, they have firm grip on their responsiblities and are successful in life, perhaps because they feel they are participating.
It helps to see yourself as something other than a passive voyeur.
“Don’t hate (free willers), player participate”
^^Of course. I will now view myself as an omniscent God from now on! If I believe I have power, I will surely have it.
Well, it seemed like the right question to ask. 
But then he said that God died. 
So that ended the conversation – if God’s dead, then what’s the foundational use? 
So God’s dead, huh? Jesus, I just didn’t even know. Hell, it’s not like I got a death announcement or anything. I guess Satan simply exercised his free will not to tell me! So how come he told him and not me? I’m a bad girl sometimes – why not tell me too? 
I’ll get him to tell if you show me how you’re a bad girl.
Incorrect. I could have chosen not to respond to your reply, yet I made a conscious decision to respond, this in effect is a choice made freely by myself. You can now display your own free will by choosing to respond or choosing not to respond to my post.
“Free will” is an obvious and ubiquitous part of everyday experience, and any denial of it is merely theoretical and intellectually misled.
If free will could actually be disproven on logic alone, then what is being disproven is merely a logically impossible concept, like a square circle, and therefore not significant or worth the time to think about it. Thus, the people who disprove free will disprove themselves just by caring about the issue.
Free will is not essentially a technical term that is strictly defined in any of teh ways that are required to disprove it. It is an aspect of life. To find out of it’s an illusion one must investigate the nature of life, not semantics.
I’m not sure it even can be an illusion, because it is a state of being, and such things are directly internally apprehended by the subject; they cannot be mistaken any more than one can be mistaken that he feels love, or sadness.
The only realistic contender to free will is determinism, and it so happens that the universe is not deterministic.
Btw it’s spelled ridiculous, as in ridicule.
Well, that is what you believe now, isn’t it! But the fact that you have replied proves that you could not have refrained from replying. The same goes for me.
I consider the Ãœbermensch to be the man who wants the Eternal Recurrence. The first thing one ought to appreciate about this definition is that it defines the Ãœbermensch as a man (a human being). This is entirely in line with Nietzsche’s writings:
"The problem I thus pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (- man is an end -): but what type of man shall be bred, shall be willed, for being higher in value, worthier of life, more certain of a future.
“Even in the past this higher type has appeared often: but as a fortunate accident, as an exception, never as something willed. In fact, it has been the type most dreaded, almost the dreadful; - and from dread the opposite type was willed, bred, and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick human animal - the Christian…”
[The Antichristian, section 3, with added emphasis.]
"Mankind does not represent a development toward something better or stronger or higher, in the sense accepted today. “Progress” is merely a modern idea, that is, a false idea. The European of today is vastly inferior in value to the European of the Renaissance; further development is altogether not according to any necessity in the direction of elevation, enhancement, or strength.
“In another sense, success in individual cases is constantly encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we really do find a higher type: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman [Ãœbermensch]. Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole families, tribes, or peoples may occasionally represent such a bull’s-eye.”
[ibid., section 4, with added emphasis.]
“Zarathustra […] does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman [übermenschlich] type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good - that the good and the just would call his overman devil…”
[Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, section 5, also with added emphasis.]
So there have often been Ãœbermenschen, according to Nietzsche (and whether he believed what he wrote is not something I will dwell on: for how can we ever tell for sure? I’ll just stick to what he actually wrote); but there has never, in this time-cycle at least, been an Ãœbermenschheit, an overmankind. And what Nietzsche wanted - or at least said he wanted… - was (for us) to (help) create such an overmankind: to breed/will such a higher type of man (though we are not “free” to do so).
I was just teasing you because I was surprised when you brought up the question of God’s freewill in another post. 
As you know, I think it a ridiculous question.
I was compelled to respond. All of the causes and effects, everything that has influenced, created, and affected my life has brought my brain up to the point of making the decision to respond right now. Even though I felt free to respond. Did I have a choice to? Besides, you are arguing from the premise by presupposing freewill with your argument for freewill.
Bow Sauwelios…
I dub you Sir Constant Quoter of Nietzsche…
You may rise! 
But you are still making a conscious decision to respond, which in effect is giving you a degree of free will, even though it may only be extremely slight.
I see your argument that all that has come before you and influenced your life up until the very second before you posted may have determined yourself to respond to my post, but there is still the oppotunity you had to dismiss my post, thus a different course of action could have been taken, which in effect negates 100% determinism.
Did you see how you were arguing from the premise by presupposing freewill with your argument for freewill?
Did you see how you were arguing from the premise by presupposing determinism with your argument for determinism?
Determinism can only be true if the causes of behavior reduce behavior to zero degrees of freedom. That is: in responding to the causes of behavior, we must have only one possible course of action in order to be determined. It is not enough that causes of behavior exist. They must straitly bind, allowing no wiggle room.
This idea violates current physics, of course.
Our behavior may be viewed from the outside (objectively), or from the inside (subjectively). Subjectively, we feel and behave as if we had free will. Objectively, free will cannot be observed. But what is observed?
Objectively, behavior is either determined or indeterminate (random).
If, viewed objectively, behavior is determined, then the subjective perception of free will is an illusion.
If, viewed objectively, behavior is random, then the subjective perception of free will is accurate. The “randomness” observed from outside is simply the inability to predict another person’s choices.
There is always a personal emotional component to one’s mental preference in the free will v. determinism debate … and, of course, leave it to a woman to inject that component into the discussion.
For those who have been mistreated, especially by people whom they expected not to ever do so (their parents, spouse, kids), determinism allows one to “forgive” quicker.
If the mistreater was predetermined to do so, then mistreating you wasn’t really something they wanted to do but were pre-determined to do and it’s not like they chose to do so, so why not just let 'em slide.
Of course, it’s never really about the other person, and forgiveness is merely the ruse we use to escape facing the underlying self-loathing that results from such mistreatment.
So the real reason the mistreated favor determininsm is so that they won’t dwell on the natural compulsion that results from being mistreated (especially by one’s parents) to internalize guilt.
If I was mistreated, and such wasn’t predetermined, I must therefore have deserved it, and such can be emotionally overwhelming to deal with and can cause much self-destructive behavior and a give-up attitude toward life.
But if I think to myself that I really didn’t deserve the mistreatment, it was simply pre-destined and really no fault of my own, then I can imagine I’m not so worthless after all, and it was simply “in the cards” that such was to happen. No reflection on me personally at all.
Indeed, it seems that those who favor determination are the “it happened to me’s”, those who’ve had tough (or even not so tough) things happen to them and they need to rationalize a way out of its overwhelming devastating grip with regard to self and other blame.
Those who favor free will are the “I can do it’s”, those who need to hope that through some kind of action on their part, they can free themselves from the very bondage that they think others have free willingly placed them in.
If they didn’t believe in free will, they might simply just do nothing and continue to take their “predetermined” punches, languishing in poverty, abuse, or whatever until it kills them.
But instead they believe that through their own free will they can change the “programming”, rewrite their “story”, and create a different outcome.
They can then not only blame others and exact some revenge, they can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps and improve the one and only life they will ever have.
Though neither of these two personal emotional component perspectives prove either determinism or free will, they do account for the mentalized, rationalized “preference” argued by the stonger advocates of either.
I was not making an argument for determinism. I was asking “did I have a choice?†considering all of the seemly deterministic causal factors. However, you were presupposing freewill with your argument for freewill.
How is physics violated? Isn’t physics causally deterministic?
A view from anywhere is subjective. (By the way, I love the topic of subjectivity and objectivity. Check out Thomas Nagel’s The View from Nowhere)
Possibly…
The appearance of randomness does nothing to support freewill. “Randomness†is not our inability to predict another person’s choices, it is our inability to determine the cause of an event. Or in your example, it is in our inability to determine the causal factors of another person’s decision. With regards to quantum mechanics, I stated in an earlier post, “It sometimes seems that the introduction of quantum mechanics in to the discussion of free will is totally irrelevant. Quantum mechanics gives us randomness but not freedom.â€
Again, The appearance of randomness does nothing to support freewill.
I strongly suspect that for any particular circumstances/set of conditions, a biological process can proceed in more than one fashion.
Ultimately it proceeds in only one though. Are all of our decisions and actions preceded by causally sufficient conditions, conditions sufficient to determine that those decisions and actions will occur?