No, but I think it has to be wrong anyway (I find this choice really funny!)
0voters
Hi All,
Well, I think it is time for me to introduce my own overarching life philosophy: what I call Objective Mechanistic Fatalism.
It is a very simple philosophy that some people immediately grasp and understand and most don’t grasp and 99 percent of those that don’t immediately grasp it will never grasp it no matter how much I try to re-explain it.
OK, ready? Here it is (remember, if you don’t grasp it now, you probably never will ):
The objective physics of the universe control everything, and having said that, that means that we too are controlled by these laws. If we are “controlled” that means we do not have freewill.
That’s it! Feel free to answer the poll question if you’d like or post responses and questions as well. I’ll try my best to respond and re-explain myself, but please remember, I’ve been offering this idea for going on three years now, and I’ve come to understand that those that don’t immediately understand it will never understand it. To be specific, I have only managed to get one person who didn’t get it to eventually get. : D The ratio of those that don’t get it to those that do I would put at about 5-to-1.
Another approach to OMF is to ask questions:
Do you think that the laws of physics objectively exist?
If you said “yes” to question number one, do you think the objective laws of physics are absolute, and by that I mean, do they apply to everything?
If a person replies with “yes” to both questions, then my point is made: objective physics control everything… including us.
“The objective physics of the universe control everything, and having said that, that means that we too are controlled by these laws. If we are “controlled” that means we do not have freewill.”
This is exactly Spinoza’s opinion. Only he suggests that the degree to which we have adequate ideas regarding things, we move from a passive state to an active state, but at no time is our will free. Are you on board with that?
Thanks for the Spinoza heads-up. I checked it out, and it looks like we are very similar in this regard if not exaclty the same! Someone once referred me to Epicurus although I thought there were some distinct differences there. Spinoza sounds much much closer.
Being in an active rather than pasive state sounds AOK to me! I did a little reading online about Spinoza and this belief sounds good although I’m no expert on Spinoza. Thanks very much for the info.
The more common term for this philosophical attitude is “determinism.”
The term “control” may be misleading, since it suggests that there may be some control-panel somewhere. The term “determine” is perhaps more accurate. The universe is such that each event is determined by other events. So, each action is a reaction, and every will is caused by something external to it. Thus, a will cannot be absolutely free. It cannot be free from all influences and determining factors.
Yet, a will can be relatively free. It is because of this that we have the notion of socio-political freedom, for example. My behavior is determined by factors outside of my control. Yet, some external factors do not influence my behavior. So, while I am not free in the absolute sense, I can be free with respect to certain things.
This way of thinking makes sense to me. The alternatives are either self-contradictory or without meaningful consequence. Yet, idealists are almost always displeased with the notion of determinism.
The reason why I stay away from “determinism” in my own definition is because there is a lot of immediate rejection or acceptance of anything where someone uses the word “determisinism”.
The terms “objective,” “mechanistic” and “fatalistic” also often lead to heavy suspiscions, and even outright rejection. So, I’m not so sure your new name makes this pill any easier to swallow.
In any case, I generally opt for honesty and forthrightness. If you know you’re not offering a new idea, don’t pretend that you are by giving it a new name.
This seems to presupose that there is no causal chain of events informing and determining your choice. If your beliefs, ability, and desires (BADs) are determined by some sort of causal nexus then whether or not you actually made a choice is dependent on your take on the free will problem.
Perhaps it would make things a little more clear if you define what you mean by “freewill.” Do you take a compatabilist take on it (I’m free because I do what I want to do), or an incompatabilist view (Counterfactually, I’m free because I had the ability to choose otherwise)?
It can be argued that in a totally determined universe there are no agents. If I drop a rock, it doesn’t make a choice to fall, causal laws determine its trajectory. The same can be argued if our BADs are determined. Our so called “choices” might not be really choices at all, just an abstraction or a vestige of folk psychology.
It’s something I figured out on my own when I was 16 (a long, long, long time ago). I just learned in this thread that it is very close if not exactly the same as Spinoza’s belief. I suppose I’ll be referring to Spinoza from here on out.
I prefer OMF because the three words help to clarify my definition and it sort of shakes off the baggage that may come with invoking the philosophies of famous philosophers. Spinoza, for example: I may disagree with some of his beliefs for all I know, so I don’t want to just say “I support Spinoza’s beliefs”. I apparently support at least one of them.
A question for Spinoza fans: is Spinoza’s version of OMF referred to as “Determinism” or is there a better term? Also I’d like to know if there are any glaring differences between his version and mine. Thanks.
p.s. and I know that it is more like “Membrian’s version of determinism” and not “Spinoza’s version of OMF”. I know. I know.
OK, right, gravity and the earth rotating on its axis doesn’t affect your choices much. But the firing of synapses in your brain does. Create a causal link between every synapse that fires in your brain and the moment of your conception, and even that doesn’t begin to scratch the surface.
I found a quote from Spinoza:
“In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.”
A question for Spinoza fans: is Spinoza’s version of OMF referred to as “Determinism” or is there a better term? Also I’d like to know if there are any glaring differences between his version and mine. Thanks.
It seems you may have answered part of this with your quote:
“In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.”, with which you seem to agree.
What distinguishes Spinoza from determinism is only his incorporation of it into a larger Ethical philosophy about the world. What interests him is that given determinism, what does this mean regarding concepts of freedom, or happiness or sadness. How is one to live in a determined world?
Spinoza based much of his thinking on the beliefs of the Stoics, and their determinism and the role of knowledge as an aspect of personal freedom. The Stoics beat Omar Khayyam by a thousand years, in fact Stoic philsophy probably was the ultimate source of Omar Khayyam’s determinism as well.
"By ‘fate’, I mean what the Greeks call heimarmenê – an ordering and sequence of causes, since it is the connexion of cause to cause which out of itself produces anything. … Consequently nothing has happened which was not going to be, and likewise nothing is going to be of which nature does not contain causes working to bring that very thing about. This makes it intelligible that fate should be, not the ‘fate’ of superstition, but that of physics, an everlasting cause of things – why past things happened, why present things are now happening, and why future things will be.
Cicero, On divination 1.125–6, trans. Long and Sedley 1987, 55L
fine, but first you have to prove that the synapses in my brain fire on their own accord rather than firing because I think a certain thought…
I found a quote from Spinoza:
“In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.”
[b]and all mr spinoza has to do is prove it empirically and logically… there is no such thing as “cause”- that is an error in reasoning…
once again… "Hume did ask the question of causality:
“x causes y” where x is the event of billiard ball a striking billiard ball b and y is the event of ball b moving after being struck…
is the sentence “x causes y” analytic? no, because it is possible to conceive of a striking b, and b not moving…
is the sentence “x causes y” synthetic? one may claim it is, but Hume analyzed the concept further, breaking it into 3 parts, priority, contiguity and necessary connection… priority could be traced to sense impression, x preceeded y; same with contiguity, x contacted y… but no matter how many times Hume observed ball a strike ball b, he could not find any NECESSARY CONNECTION… the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense… Hume demonstrated that when we claim that one thing a causes another b, we are only reporting on our EXPECTATION that a will be followed by b… this is a psychological fact about us and not a fact about the world… this is the problem of induction… what makes us so certain that the future will behave like the past? because it has always happened that way in the past begs the question… Must it do so in the future just because it has always has in the past? what guarantees that the “laws of nature” will hold tomorrow? there is no analytic or synthetic guarantee of this… "
I’m not sure if I understand. Are you implying that you first think a thought and THEN the synapse fires? My ubderstanding is that they happen at exactly the same time: the synapse firing is thought.
There is no such thing as “cause”? I’m afraid I’m lost…
Does “time” exist?
And the “problem of unduction” argument for me is problematic. I could just as easily say that your argument suffers from it. What does it prove?
):
Are you implying that you first think a thought and THEN the synapse fires? My ubderstanding is that they happen at exactly the same time: the synapse firing is thought.