Update: Knowing that free will is just an illusion, how to continue living?

[invalid]

And overcoming fear is the act of free will

You're confusing me breh-lol.

Fear is a state of mind (or being).
And free will is the power to act without influence, it's not the act itself.

So with this in mind, I have a hard time understanding that....
overcoming a "state of mind" (fear) is the act of the "power to act" (free will)?????? The "power to act" is not an act in and of itself.

When I said "Fear in this instance impedes on free will" what that means is...
this state of mind or being (fear) inhibits the power to act without influence.

And I'm not sure if one can "overcome" fear. You simply change your state of mind (being) regarding a particular circumstance.

Fear as a state of mind is still with you and can be brought out depending on the catalyst or another circumstance.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

MyopicEagle,

Your logic has to be consistent in order for you to make an argument. You can't "consider" good and evil and put it into some limbo zone. It is either/or. Either moral choices exist or they don't.

A society is nothing more than two or more individuals. If you lived on a desert island with two other people. Killing the other two people would not just be bad for "society" it would be bad for you and affect your ability to survive in the island. Morality = practicality. They are not separate concepts.

OP the whole reason we live and are adapted to societies is survival. It is self destructive to murder and rape others.

You also conveniently ignored when I said whites enslaving blacks was predestined. Does that mean whites are predetermined to be predators and blacks predetermined to be prey?

Btw you are proving yourself wrong everytime you make the choice to respond to this post.

Let us be clear. You said:

If choice and responsibilities don't exist and everything is predetermined that means there is no such thing as good or bad. Yet OP acknowledges the existence of good and bad in his original post. Which is it? True not to juelz an answer.

With your first sentence, I presumed that you mean that in this determinist vision, the notions of good and bad as moral statements don't hold weight since people can't help but act according to forces outside of their influence. Do I understand you here? Correct me if I'm wrong. This means that good and bad, as moral statements, rely on free will to work. I dispute this notion of free will.

This doesn't imply that good and bad as societal and individual constructs don't exist. And this is what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread:

But, the fact there is no absolute definition of good and bad doesn't mean that individuals knowing this truth cannot set their own meters. After all, that's what we've been doing, and it works just fine.

Like I said, there is no absolute definition of good and bad; since we already showed these notions didn't work as moral statements. This conclusion doesn't say anything on notions of good and bad as societal constructs or even as perceptions, for example. This is what you describe when you say

Killing the other two people would not just be bad for "society" it would be bad for you and affect your ability to survive in the island.

Whether you consider that killing is a bad thing through the society lense or through the individualistic lense, it doesn't negate my argument that bad as a moral statement (and uniquely that) is an empty notion. You're circling around my argument, but not attacking it yet.

Morality = practicality. They are not separate concepts.

OP the whole reason we live and are adapted to societies is survival. It is self destructive to murder and rape others.

That's exactly what I believe and also what... I've... been saying
Morality is extremely practical. Doesn't mean the concept has any truth to it, since no free will and all.

You also conveniently ignored when I said whites enslaving blacks was predestined. Does that mean whites are predetermined to be predators and blacks predetermined to be prey?

Because I thought it was evident when I talked about murderers and rapists, or even reading the thread. My bad, let me be clearer everything in the entire course of the universe is predetermined. Every single thing.

Btw you are proving yourself wrong everytime you make the choice to respond to this post.

You should say that to Siri when you're asking it a question. It would make just as much sense

 

[Dreamzeedream]

Why do they choose not to change?


No choice at all

Lack of faith or they dont believe in themselves. Complacently playa apart in it to

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Lack of faith or they dont believe in themselves. Complacently playa apart in it to

What causes them to lack faith? To not believe in themselves?

 

[Rawtid]

Responsibility is very real. How you rationalize what you’re responsible for or how much, is on you.

 

[Dreamzeedream]

What causes them to lack faith? To not believe in themselves?

Failing alot ia a big reason,rejection,low self esteem

 

[BlackJesus]

Let us be clear. You said:


With your first sentence, I presumed that you mean that in this determinist vision, the notions of good and bad as moral statements don't hold weight since people can't help but act according to forces outside of their influence. Do I understand you here? Correct me if I'm wrong. This means that good and bad, as moral statements, rely on free will to work. I dispute this notion of free will.

Morality depends on choice because if there were no choice involved, it would be amoral. Morality is a human concept.

For example a bear attacking humans is not open to the question of good and evil, the bear is simply doing what he was programmed to do. Just like a coral bush, an ant or a Venus fly trap.

Likewise if humans were the same way, morality would not be a valid concept to apply to our actions.

Like I said, there is no absolute definition of good and bad; since we already showed these notions didn't work as moral statements. This conclusion doesn't say anything on notions of good and bad as societal constructs or even as perceptions,

This is the "social" theory of morality in a nutshell. The theory that society 'creates' morality. But "society" does not create the need for morality. It is only an outgrowth. Our survival does.

That's exactly what I believe and also what... I've... been saying
Morality is extremely practical. Doesn't mean the concept has any truth to it, since no free will and all.

This makes no sense. Again your logic seems to fall apart. Either morality is practical, meaning it is true or it is not.

Here's a syllogism to help you visualize this:

1+2 = 3 is practical and true

1+2= 100 is not true and therefore not practical

Even if you lived on an island by yourself, you would still need traditional morality (hard work, honesty, integrity etc) to survive. Just not the moral concepts that deals with other people.

Because I thought it was evident when I talked about murderers and rapists, or even reading the thread. My bad, let me be clearer everything in the entire course of the universe is predetermined. Every single thing.

So black people are predetermined to be slaves huh?



That's where this is going.

 

[Clay Puppington]

I stopped believing in free will and my life got noticeably worse

I began living my life as if I did have free will & concious responsibility over every single thought & action ala mindfulness (even shyt like how I react to someone cutting me off on the road) and free will suddenly existed

Whether free will exists or not doesnt matter to me - knowing that I can influence my will by being comfortable with the paradox is what's significant to me

This too.

 

[Wildin]

I agree that animals have instincts but I disagree on the fact that no experience can change what they do.

These are interchangeable. The man has a stimuli (example: I'm thirsty/It's too hot) who will prompt an action (example: I'll drink/I won't drink). Same thing for the dog. It's just that the human brain deals with a lot more stimuli: Example:

• I'm thirsty
• I'm in a comfortable position
• The water is too damn far from the couch

=> I won't drink (right now).

In both cases, stimuli that produce an action, whether it be drinking or not drinking.

In nature animals will do what they do. There's not a reason that they won't. Like I said you won't find a wolf that only eats beans and grass because it thinks eating meat is wrong.

Animals behavior can be changed trough conditioning a la Pavlovs dog. The dog was trained that it'll get a treat after it hears a bell. He'd ring the bell the dog would salivate in anticipation of the treat. That's conditioning through intervention things like that wouldn't necessarily happen in the wild.

The man does have stimuli but we are more complex than just "the drink is too hot = don't / won't drink" we think, we rationalize

It's too hot, I'll let it cool down
I'll put ice in it
I'll blow on it
It'll be ready in a minute or two

Dog getting its mouth burned just thinks "pain = stop" it cant think why, or what to do to rectify it.

Our ability to think beyond the initial stimuli is what separates us. The ability to rationalize allows us to make choices/decisions.

 

[HabitualChiller]

Morality depends on choice because if there were no choice involved, it would be amoral. Morality is a human concept.

For example a bear attacking humans is not open to the question of good and evil, the bear is simply doing what he was programmed to do. Just like a coral bush, an ant or a Venus fly trap.

Likewise if humans were the same way, morality would not be a valid concept to apply to our actions.



This is the "social" theory of morality in a nutshell. The theory that society 'creates' morality. But "society" does not create the need for morality. It is only an outgrowth. Our survival does.



This makes no sense. Again your logic seems to fall apart. Either morality is practical, meaning it is true or it is not.

Here's a syllogism to help you visualize this:

1+2 = 3 is practical and true

1+2= 100 is not true and therefore not practical

Even if you lived on an island by yourself, you would still need traditional morality (hard work, honesty, integrity etc) to survive. Just not the moral concepts that deals with other people.



So black people are predetermined to be slaves huh?



That's where this is going.

Whats your IQ score? Too many intelligent people on this board

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

@MyopicEagle so basically, your M.O is Objectivism, no?

for those that don't know

objectivism
ob·jec·tiv·ism
/əbˈjektəˌvizəm,äbˈjektəˌvizəm/
noun

1. 
   the tendency to lay stress on what is external to or independent of the mind.
2. 
   PHILOSOPHY
   the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

EDIT: morality is needed for us to be human and to function as a society, being amoral is also necessary but often times it can lead to nihilism, nonchalance, and psychopathy. Where being amoral comes into being needed is when you need to make HARD decisions but you cant allow your moral compass to cloud your judgment

 

[BlackJesus]

@MyopicEagle so basically, your M.O is Objectivism, no?

for those that don't know

objectivism
ob·jec·tiv·ism
/əbˈjektəˌvizəm,äbˈjektəˌvizəm/
noun

1. 
   the tendency to lay stress on what is external to or independent of the mind.
2. 
   PHILOSOPHY
   the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

EDIT: morality is needed for us to be human and to function as a society, being amoral is also necessary but often times it can lead to nihilism, nonchalance, and psychopathy. Where being amoral comes into being needed is when you need to make HARD decisions but you cant allow your moral compass to cloud your judgment

Wrong. He's the furthest thing from an "objectivist" that you could imagine. They belief morality is objective and in human free will . Similar to my argument.

 

[BlackJesus]

Whats your IQ score? Too many intelligent people on this board

Last I checked over 130

 

[Mugenight]

​

 

[HabitualChiller]

Last I checked over 130

Did you go to a psychiatrist to get a test done? I ask because I've been curious about my IQ for the past couple of months.