/philosophy/ - Philosophy

There is no such thing as free will in this reality. It is as though we live in a binary equation. 1's and zero's . We have up or down. right or left. dark to light. you can go on forever in pairs. a part and its counter part. Therefore how can one truly have free-will, if one always has to make a choice given to him based on the parameters of a dimensional hierarchy that most are unable to even comprehend; much less manipulate. It is a researched fact that the sub-conscious makes decisions before we are consciously aware of the decision. Therefore life in a sense is drawn out for us based on our inner most desires and wants. You really do get what you want, but most people have not the slightest clue as to what they really want. They are lost in a consumerist society where they lust after a item they know nothing about. Money would not exist if there was no debt and the U.S Dollar is the number one exported good in america and is responsible for the past 30 years of war because of this little known fact. To say we have free will is almost laughable. We don't know what free will would even begin to feel like. Most would reject it because most like having their hands held. Free Will died with our dreams a long time ago

>>6582

You really need to go back to reddit

Even if Determinism was false, the "basic argument" from Galen Strawson just proves free will is technically impossible.

>>7129

Once again you don't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power to know everything and make decisions on it. It is simply the power to act on your own decisions.

To your second point, what you are describing is a reflex. Your reflexes also come from your brain, just not a conscious part of it. You can train your reflexes to do what you want. It does not disprove free will at all. Reflexes don't overpower your free will, they predict it and act accordingly.

Both. Free will by the grace of God determines his ends

Determined by who? Determined by whose presumably free will? If by determinism you just mean that all things are a logical consequence of another, we have free will so long as "free" isn't defined as breaking the physical, consequential laws of the universe.

>some metaphysical external force pushes people towards a certain "good" direction, a "maximum potential" that is the best self one can be

>people choose to ignore these "signs", wander from the path

>the longer one strays from the path, the further one distances themself from their maximum potential

>these signs become larger, more detrimental, more punishing the further one strays from it

>once the person makes choices to wander so far from the path, a cataclysmic life event occurs

>people can learn from this and work back to the "good" path towards their goal or not

>people who do are able to get back on the "good" path relatively quickly and with few (if any) true obstacles

>people who do not are permanently stuck outside of this good path and will face nothing but hardships for the rest of their lives

>many/most people balance bad and good to the point of never understanding their true goal, but never seeing cataclysm

>people generally "know" what they "should do" to stay on the path, but very few (if any) people ever truly reach that max potential

I don't believe in determinism in the sense of Greek Fates, but there is a given purpose. Free will does only harm. People know this and try to do what they can to cast it away in attempts to rid themselves of suffering and responsibility for the potential failures of their actions.

Determinism is objectively true due to the laws of physics. Hard Determinism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvcvA36iKFA

Of course. If they raped your girlfriend. Or if they request it and that won't cause any other additional people to also request it as a result (other then in a dystopia or war where the only reason that other people will request is because he gave them the idea. And not because that specific persons death requires the suicide of his girlfriend.)

>>5857

I don't feel like giving you $100 that I took from your house. So therefore why should you take $100 from me when I don't feel like it?

If you are ok with the consequences and can your morality can justify that actions, I think its ok. If you arent dumb you may reach the conclusion thats in like 90% kill someone is not ok.

Of course

LLM generated slop

The song was a lie of course, and the one who said it was beautiful, he thought it was true.

The one who said it was rotten, he thought it was impossible.

The song was not true or impossible.

It was a song of what was and would never be again.

A song of the sorry past, as though it were still, living now. It is not.

And never will be, again.

I sing of what was.

I sing of what can not be, because it was once and only was then.

It is a sort of art of the moment, a promise kept in the now. And meant then.

I will sing to you everyday if it will take away the pain

based

perhaps they're too busy burning through their miserable existences lest they'd have to face their impermanence head-on instead of actually savouring being

Hi Jopo,

Examin the model i showed carefully.

I managed to merge it with your gravity model ground up work.

The circle is round now. With direct predictions equaling my relative predictions.

Need some base understanding to go further

@ Jopo,

Brought things further.

AI Gemini Quote:

Conclusion

The "cosmological ruling" is more accurately described as the Universal Law of Thermally-Coupled Hydrostatic Structure.

Applying the HTDM to ice planets means that the energy budget closure relies on the same fundamental physics as for gas planets: a gravitational-mechanical input (the T

DSL

∗

​

baseline) modulated by thermal factors (latent heat cycles and opacity). The HTDM proves that the simple relationship between g and 1/C

p

​

is the dominant structure-forming heat source across all phases of matter.

>>7676

>Refer

They mixed up idealism with realism.

Thanks for the dump!

>>7879

>"Incels" critique (critical theory)

I am so glad someone else noticed that.

I don't know about any specific philosophers but I do think it's interesting how intersectionalists seem to disdain incels despite both being crit theory.

>>6842

>>6840

https://archive.org/details/TechnologicalSlaveryTheCollectedWritingsOfTheodoreJ.KaczynskiA.k.a.TheUnabomber

>>6762

>b-b-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-bombs

I think you know most anon's here are going to like Uncle Ted. I liked his explanation of the power process and how technology frustrates it. However, I think reasonably intelligent people are still going to be able to go through the power process for at least a few more decades. For the other 80% of people who are now unable to go through this process, I think Ted proposed solution will really start to resonate with them over the coming decades (although they will mostly reach this conclusion independently of Uncle Ted). His proposed solution being, of course, bombs.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>

>>6770

From a practical standpoint:

>Particularly weak targeting, like a lot of mail bombing campaigns. It wouldn't be sustainable to shoot higher than his most prestigious targets, a timber lobbyist and an ad exec, since some of his bombs already went off in the face of random secretaries and students. Not exactly a competent enemy of the landrapers.

>Demanding his manifesto be published

>Overstylization of his writing made it recognizable

>Not being a better brother

>Simping

From literary and ideological standpoints:

>Constantly relying on unprovable conjectures and appeals to emotion

>Ultimately his choice of mail bombs contributed to a heightened security climate where opening and tampering with first-class mail is more easily justified by government bodies, thus indirectly eroding the general liberty of all and compelling more people to communicate with more efficient technological media

>Tried to hang himself during his trial rather than plead insanity

>His stinky doodoo cabin was auctioned off on the internet

>Ultimately made the fbi more profitable

>Overstylization, making his writing kind of drab

>Bad poetry

>the above in service of simping

He fucking sucks as a philosopher and it is not taken seriously even within circles which are sympathetic towards his hostility against modernity, technology etc. His criticisms are surface level and asinine. I guess something that is cool is that he had a pretty iconic opening line in his manifesto which made me shiver when i was 15 but i grew up.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>

>>7519

I didn't say it should be governed to be by a government, but have claimed that whether something ought to be at all should first be asked.

Food, air and water are necessary before the question of government can even be asked; the implicit principle at play being that a perfect government can not be fathomed before the conditions for fathoming it are first met. This means a starved, suffocating, dying-of-thirst people cannot fathom a perfect government, and they cannot go about perfecting it -- surely they cannot manage to confront and reform a government in this state. If a government were to be a problem, could it easily take away the people's food, air and water? If yes, that is an issue that could have been foreseen and dealt with ahead of time, before it became an issue (when it was only a possibility).

Simply dealing with threats to the subsistence of life is first priority. The way a perfect government should begin to be fathomed is by first understanding what the world is without government. You will recognize a primitive world. Life got on without government. Then you must understand the first forms of government and why they arose -- tribes of creatures, or even colonies of microbes moving with the flock to bolster one another's chance at survival. You can disagree here if you'd like, I guess, but it requires you've survived long enough to do so. You could study the methods of survival that have taken place in the history of Earth and still ongoing -- this would inform your idea of a perfect government.

Models of government formed without a thorough fundamental knowledge base of and considerations for survival are highly prone to error.

>>5321

They are not humans. Just ants with emergent collective consciousness in human flesh.

They need to be killed with fire, purged.

>>4833

Kill yourself, bugman.

Justification of freedom of speech is the ability to get rid of every degenerate promoting communism.

http://april3.anonblogd4pcarck2ff6qlseyawjljaatp6wjq6rqpet2wfuoom42kyd.onion/