Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_10v7bci in philosophy
xAppleJuice t1_j850s7k wrote
Reply to comment by Masimat in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 06, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt
The problem is in opposing, as idealists usually do, determinism and indeterminism. In reality, there is no such thing as a free will that does not depend on anything, since the acts of men are determined by definite causes and it is a mistake to suggest that the natural course of things in the world is not subject to laws.
Regarding the Big Bang, the same thing happens, it could be said that it was not a random or fortuitous event, but was determined by the conditions and physical laws that existed at that time.
Now, to recognize the conditioning of all the phenomena of nature, it is also necessary to deny absolute metaphysical determinism, which affirms that the recognition of the existence of necessity leads to completely denying all chance in nature and in society and makes the active intervention of man is unnecessary, which, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes fatalism, belief in luck (destiny) or in quietism and preaching of the complete passivity of man. By recognizing the existence of necessity in nature and in history, chance is not denied, but is explained as a form of manifestation of objective causal connections. The same occurs with the acceptance of the relative freedom of human will, where the active, diligent participation of man in the course of events is required.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments