Free will an absurdity
- This topic has 199 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Free will is a Christian dogma, to establish that of Original Sin. If free from motive, the subject is to blame. The judicial system is based on this dogma: legitimising punishment, just deserts, etc. Hence the poor are blamed for their poverty, the criminal for his acts, which can be judged without reference to the social environment, impelling factors, etc.The whole blame game rises from this dogma, central to class society and its control structure. Causes can be ignored, people blamed, as their feelings, thoughts and acts are their "fault", nothing to do with society. Free will is at best a form of blindness, at worst an insidious ploy. It has no place in materialist or socialist thought.
In fact, I consider myself, DJP, an ethical person, but yes, I get angry at people I expect more perspicacity from, like fellow Socialists. I wouldn't get angry at a Catholic, because a Catholic is supposed, in fact required, to believe in free will. But of scientific socialists who call themselves materialists, I expect more.
This is PF Strawson "Freedom and Resentment" confirmed live. Even if we try to convince ourselves that "free-will" does not exist, that people merely act according to previous antecedent causes, we *still* get mad at them, offer up praise etc. We still act as though they can modify there wills towards us. It's hard to be a radical skeptic for more than five minutes at a time. We are embedded in society and that means we are stuck treating people as moral agents no matter what silly things we try to make ourselves believe.This is why my interest in the topic comes and goes. I'm convinced it has only remained a problem for so long because the problem has been asked in an incoherent way.. But I think it will take another few thousand years before everyone agrees.
I don't care. We are fallible.I just have a thing about consistency. That's what I want.I want self-styled materialists to be materialists. I m not interested in converting honest idealists. But you are idealists claiming to be materialists when, in fact, your use of the term free will sunders you from materialist tradition, places you at odds with all the great materialists, all of whom rejected free will as an absurd belief AND an absurd term.This leads to mental indolence and incoherence. NOT WORTHY OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY!
I go into the kitchen to make a cup of tea. Seeing someone on the telly drink tea has made me think of it.I open a tin of Lapsang Souchong. The smoky scent takes me back to a love of mine: Chinese history. I now want to read a book on that. I enter my library to get the book. I stub my toe. Looking down, I see a totally different book which grabs my attention. I think that would be an interesting change. I pick up that book, make Indian tea with milk instead, now that the momentary Chinese interest has faded, and re-enter the lounge. Quickly, my TV show has started, I put my book down and settle down to watch.At no point has my will acted independently of the chain of causation. I could stretch that back to my very conception.Similarly, if capitalism provokes a socialist revolution in human society, that too will be part of the chain of causation, a motivated response.
Free will IS an absurdity! Do you think I would be here, where I am now, if I had a free will? Not on your Nelly!
Deja Vu! I have heard this argumenent, word for word, elswhere today
FB MESSAGE:"Free will as a term has been understood for millennia as the doctrine of an independent will. To continue to use the term when that is not what you mean is to sow incoherence and muddled thinking. Your first reply here shows that you do not believe in an uncaused will, so stop using "free" and say will, or volition. Loose use of words leads to loose thinking. All along, only I have been coherent, consistent, and materialist in my language and in tune with the materialists philosophically. My adversaries have not said anything of substance, and have shown only a vagueness which ill befits a thinker."
John Oswald wrote:All along, only I have been coherent, consistent, and materialist in my language and in tune with the materialists philosophically. My adversaries have not said anything of substance, and have shown only a vagueness which ill befits a thinker."“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Topic will be closed now.Not only do my adversaries in the party insist on using the term "free will", they actually do believe, it seems, that the will is outside of the chain of causation which governs all material reality.We see how the loose use of words verily leads to loose thinking and an end to intellectual discipline.Idealists are in the party! END.
I never use the term 'free will'. Like you I shudder when it is used in a political context in respect of 'freedom to choose', wage slavery, but I will not get into a polarised philosophical materialist, argument over its non-existence. I am a historical materialst socialist not a darn philosopher. I have seeen too many potential 'comradely not' punchups in Glasgow pubs over entrenched postions being taken. I am with Marx in his advice, 'De omnibus dubitandum' [doubt everything]. That is not an idealist position. A hard line just closes down interrogation of a scientific way to investigate, if not competely understand, the phenomena.END
John Oswald wrote:I go into the kitchen to make a cup of tea. Seeing someone on the telly drink tea has made me think of it.I open a tin of Lapsang Souchong. The smoky scent takes me back to a love of mine: Chinese history. I now want to read a book on that. I enter my library to get the book. I stub my toe. Looking down, I see a totally different book which grabs my attention. I think that would be an interesting change. I pick up that book, make Indian tea with milk instead, now that the momentary Chinese interest has faded, and re-enter the lounge. Quickly, my TV show has started, I put my book down and settle down to watch.At no point has my will acted independently of the chain of causation. I could stretch that back to my very conception.Similarly, if capitalism provokes a socialist revolution in human society, that too will be part of the chain of causation, a motivated response.This is more about your individual discipline as to whether you pursue your original objective or allow yourself to be distracted along the way. Presumably having a cup of tea is of peripheral interest to you.
John Oswald wrote:I go into the kitchen to make a cup of tea. Seeing someone on the telly drink tea has made me think of it.I open a tin of Lapsang Souchong. The smoky scent takes me back to a love of mine: Chinese history. I now want to read a book on that. I enter my library to get the book. I stub my toe. Looking down, I see a totally different book which grabs my attention. I think that would be an interesting change. I pick up that book, make Indian tea with milk instead, now that the momentary Chinese interest has faded, and re-enter the lounge. Quickly, my TV show has started, I put my book down and settle down to watch.have you considered adult Attention Deficit Disorder as a possible explanation!
What does the Spontaneous Solidarity of the multi cultural working class community of London say about the present dog eat dog rat race. The people have come together to help each other without leaders or the State with Food parcels clothing shelter comradeship etc it proves what we have said all along.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.