Submitted by CryptoTrader1024 t3_zwqxxb in philosophy
YuGiOhippie t1_j1yx3ab wrote
Reply to comment by Jingle-man in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024
If you’re whole life philosophy can be simplified to “we are puppets is that so bad?”
I pity your view of the world. What a huge nihilist waste of time this universe is.
The holocaust? We are puppets, that’s not so bad.
A child tell it’s mother he lovers her. We are puppets, who cares?
This very argument we are having - why have it - shouldn’t we all kill ourselves and end it? we are puppets what’s so bad?
Basically you don’t have a philosophy of life. You have a non-philosophy of non-life.
Jingle-man t1_j1zh9g2 wrote
But if nothing matters, then everything matters!
>What a huge nihilist waste of time this universe is.
That's precisely what makes the universe so beautiful: the fact that it is unnecessary.
If you can't find fulfilment in the cosmic game, if you insist that only useful things have value, and things aren't worth caring about unless they mean something – then I pity your view of the world; it seems like a very exhausting way to think.
YuGiOhippie t1_j1zke87 wrote
The unnecessary-ness of the universe means that all it’s elements are contingent :
Contingent is that which could’ve been something else ; that’s the beauty of it : it was unnecessary : not determined to be as such.
Your position is self-defeating.
Jingle-man t1_j20m3p2 wrote
No: the elements of the universe follow necessarily from each other, can not be anything other than they are. But the very fact that anything is at all is unnecessary in that there might as well be nothing. The drama follows a necessary path, but the drama itself is an unnecessary phenomenon. There doesn't need to be a universe. But there is. And that's beautiful.
Polychrist t1_j22f7br wrote
So you believe that the existence of the universe itself is a non-determined random occurrence? Because that’s what it sounds like…
And if it’s possible for that occurrence to be non-determined and unnecessary, then how can you be so sure that there are no other non-determined and unnecessary events?
Jingle-man t1_j23amaw wrote
>So you believe that the existence of the universe itself is a non-determined random occurrence? Because that’s what it sounds like…
Language fails. These words don't really mean much when we're talking about an object of which there is no outside. The universe cannot be said to follow from anything else, because there is nothing before it. Nor can it be said to serve any other purpose than itself, because there is nothing beyond it. The universe is not an occurrence; it is occurrence itself, the entire web of causality.
Things that occur occur necessarily – but does occurrence have to occur? It makes no sense for something to necessarily cause causality itself. Thus I do not believe the universe can be called a necessary phenomenon, even though all that is a part of it necessarily follows.
Polychrist t1_j23s9ip wrote
How can you know that there is nothing outside of our universe, or nothing beyond it?
And assuming that you’re correct, and there’s nothing else— is it actually possible that the universe would not have been? How could a particular state of affairs ever emerge from a non-state of affairs, except by random occurrence or necessity?
Jingle-man t1_j23x5o5 wrote
>How can you know that there is nothing outside of our universe, or nothing beyond it?
Because the word "universe" literally means all that exists. If there's something beyond what we call universe, then what we call universe isn't universe at all.
>is it actually possible that the universe would not have been?
Is it possible that Possibility could not have been? ... is what you mean to ask. As I say, language fails.
>How could a particular state of affairs ever emerge from a non-state of affairs, except by random occurrence or necessity?
That is quite literally the Great Question, that no one is qualified to answer. But how could Occurrence itself be a random occurrence? "Randomness" refers to the interaction of possibilities; so how can randomness exist prior to existence and possibility itself?
Polychrist t1_j244foz wrote
Well, that’s just the thing— if it’s nonsense to talk about occurrences not occurring, or possibilities not being possible, then it seems the universe must exist out of necessity. To say that it is possible that possibilities wouldn’t exist, is nonsense— therefore it is a contradiction to say that the universe could’ve not been.
Perhaps the universe only exists because it would’ve been a logical contradiction for it not to have.
Or perhaps the universe (not just the observable universe post big-bang, but the potential multiverse structure beneath it which you would also deem part of the “universe,” or “all that exists,”) has always existed, and is persistent unchanging in some sense, and therefore could not have not been either.
I’m just not sure that it made sense when you said that it’s possible that there would’ve been nothing, and that makes it beautiful that there’s something. I would argue that it’s either not possible that there was nothing, I.e. the existence of the universe itself is necessary, I.e. it’s non-existence would be a contradiction, or else other non-necessary entities may exist.
Jingle-man t1_j249jeo wrote
>I’m just not sure that it made sense when you said that it’s possible that there would’ve been nothing, and that makes it beautiful
It didn't make sense at all, because language can't really capture this kind of thing well. But to be fair, I said "the universe might as well not have been" which isn't wrong. There's no reason for the universe to exist, but neither is there any reason for it not to exist. The universe is "unnecessary" in that its existence itself is not a matter of necessity. The universe truly "doesn't need to exist" because "need" implies necessity. But as I've said again and again, Necessity is not necessary. It is (that is, the universe is) unnecessary.
Polychrist t1_j249q4x wrote
And I disagree. I think the existence of the universe is necessary.
YuGiOhippie t1_j20rwfa wrote
You cannot prove that the elements follow necessarily.
They follow contingently.
That’s my point.
Jingle-man t1_j20towl wrote
No one can ever prove that (A) could have led to (C) rather than (B); nor can one, as it stands, prove that it could only lead to (B); because the only reality we have access to is the one in which (A) indeed did lead to (B). In the absence of cold hard proof, I am left with only intuition and faith.
I do not believe that, if we could rewind time and let it proceed again, anything different would occur. That's the long and short of it. That idea doesn't fill me with existential dread, because it quite literally changes nothing about how I inhabit the world – except that it gives me a poetic sense of contentment and soothes some fears.
YuGiOhippie t1_j20v2dz wrote
You’re free to have faith in your own lack of freedom sure, if that makes you feel better.
Ironic considering your determinist position.
Jingle-man t1_j20vx0j wrote
You have a very narrow idea of fate and belief if you think there's any irony to what I've said. Don't take things so seriously!
VitriolicViolet t1_j21xlpj wrote
whats wrong with it?
we are puppets, puppets who pull their own strings. what he stated is not nihilism, nihilism would go on to claim that due to being puppets we should not pull our own strings (big difference between ''theres no meaning'' and ''theres no point in making your own meaning'')
YuGiOhippie t1_j22aoz9 wrote
A puppet who’s strings are being pulled cannot “make meaning”
smariroach t1_j243fou wrote
This seems like an argument motivated by bitterness. The statement was that it's not so bad to be puppets, not that we shouldn't care about any particular things that take place. And how can the universe be a waste of time? Time can only be wasted from the perspectives of those that find value in time, and therefore it can only be wasted if you assign it some value. It has value to humans, so given that we don't exist independently from the universe we must appreciate the universe if we find value in anything at all.
YuGiOhippie t1_j25dkaw wrote
Puppets cannot care. That’s the point.
Their care, their meaning, is a fake if it’s pre-determined. It is not authentic. It doesn’t arise from choice only necessity if we are puppets.
smariroach t1_j25ldfo wrote
Puppets cannot care, but we're not literal puppets. We can care, and have meaning.
Saying that caring is fake if it's pre-determined is not self evident.
All it means is that whether we care is dependent on what it is we care (or don't care) about and who we are. We could not be other than we are, and the things we form opinions about could not be other than they are, and therefore we will care (or not).
Why is the care only authentic if we can break the laws of causality? What does your use of "authentic" and "fake" mean in this context?
YuGiOhippie t1_j25mm7g wrote
If you cannot choose to care or not you are not really caring or not caring.
A puppet can act as if it cares but it’s a meaningless act.
A puppet forced to care by the laws of causality doesn’t really care. It’s not authentic because it’s forced.
Do you love me if i tell you with a gun to your head that you must love me? Of course not. Even if you swear YOU LOVE ME : if i forced you to say it : it is not authentic.
smariroach t1_j263x1j wrote
> If you cannot choose to care or not you are not really caring or not caring.
Why not? what is it that you think it means to "care" about something?
I would like it if you stop mentioning puppets because I have a hard time knowing if you're being metaphorical or if I'm expected to explain in what way a literal puppet is not like a human, it would help me understand more clearly what you mean.
>It’s not authentic because it’s forced. I'm still not sure I understand why the unavoidable nature of the feeling makes it inauthentic.
>Do you love me if i tell you with a gun to your head that you must love me? Of course not. Even if you swear YOU LOVE ME : if i forced you to say it : it is not authentic.
That's not a good analogy, because loving and saying you love are two completely different things. A better question would be: if we discovered a drug that would cause a person who takes it to fall in love with the first person they see (a classic love potion), would that person be in love if they took it, and they felt the effects? In this example, the feeling, emotion, everything, is in every way like love that the subject would have felt had they fallen in love without the drug. Are they "really" in love now or not? If not, why? how do you define "love" in a way that excludes what this person is feeling?
And what if we take it the other direction. What if you work out, becoming attractive and behave in such an impressive, kind and likable way that it makes me fall in love with you. Is if inauthentic since it's caused by what you did, therefore you having "forced" me to love you since I would not have had you not done those things?
YuGiOhippie t1_j26maaf wrote
Cool now love doesn’t exist because it can’t be defined outside of your presupposed deterministic world view.
Nihilism as I said.
smariroach t1_j280kp4 wrote
You don't seem to be trying to to provide your own definitions, reasons, or elaborations, and you ignore all my questions. I'm not sure why you are here if you don't want to explore philosophy.
YuGiOhippie t1_j28hhfd wrote
You know what is great? This fruitless conversation is not determined to go on endlessly: you are free to disengage at anytime
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments