Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

smariroach t1_j25ldfo wrote

Reply to comment by YuGiOhippie in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024

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?

1

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.

1

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?

1

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.

0

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.

0

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

1