Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aka-Pulc0 t1_j1wqqaw wrote

I dunno how deep you are in deterministic philosophy (I am myself still in shallow water) but a short answer may be that you can still make a choice even if the choice you made was pre-determined. And that choice matter because you made it.


GrymanOne t1_j1wrzu6 wrote

I too am still in shallow waters, which is why I'm engaging. It's hard to have these conversations at the bar, as most cannot follow the logic or reasoning.

The thesis for determinism is that all events are necessary. If it was necessary because that event was predetermined, then what choice was there in the matter? My "choice" may matter, simply because it HAS to matter, but it's still a hard pill to swallow to say that my actions are not my own.


Aka-Pulc0 t1_j1wtjuh wrote

It s 1 am here =) i ll follow up tomorrow with a better explanation of my point. I m new here and glab to have these conversations!


mcr1974 t1_j1x6oby wrote

Why would the fact that they are pre-determined not make them your own though?


GrymanOne t1_j1xvnbr wrote

Well, I did them, but did I have a choice? Again, if all actions are necessary, then I could have done no other than what I have done. What choice in the matter did I have? If not my own choice, was it my own action?

This is not to say that all actions are not caused. I think one could argue that indeed all actions are caused. But caused actions do not mean predetermined. Caused actions are not necessary, are they? But again, if all events are necessary, and all events are actions, and all actions are caused...


Jingle-man t1_j20q1t9 wrote

>If not my own choice, was it my own action?

Of course! Why wouldn't it be?


YuGiOhippie t1_j1yxc99 wrote

All events are contingent.

Not necessary.

This is the shallows waters in which most people drown in determinism.


GrymanOne t1_j209ogw wrote

And yet I just had my Intro to Philosophy professor tell me that the very thesis of Determinism is: All events are necessary.


YuGiOhippie t1_j20rn7b wrote

Yup it’s a thesis.

But you should ask your professor the difference between necessary and contingent facts.


GrymanOne t1_j20s2a7 wrote

We did cover this.

>Observe that saying that event E is contingent is the same thing as saying that event E is “not necessary,” and saying that event E is necessary is the same thing as saying that event E is “not contingent.”
>So “necessary” and “contingent” are inter-definable. Be aware of that.

In his words, another way to write the thesis would be: No events are contingent.


gradual_alzheimers t1_j1yffkf wrote

I find it so strange that if the world is indeed deterministic why on earth would it spend so much time debating deterministically about its own free will. What would compel a process to have meta reflection? The fact that we engage in discussion and consider other points of views on this subject at all just seems strange regardless if determinism is true or not -- and to be honest I don't know the answer but this point has always been odd.


Olympiano t1_j1z2vms wrote

I think what drives it is that discovery and striving to understand things feels good, or is rewarding in some manner. I guess it’s a result of evolution reinforcing this as well as our intelligence and the ability to reason abstractly, and when they come together, we wander into strange territory and begin to examine ourselves as well as the world.

I have heard a theory that our self-awareness is not even necessary for what we have achieved as a species though, and that it’s simply an incidental byproduct of the development of our intelligence. Some things just evolve incidentally without necessarily conferring a benefit in itself. So maybe the level of abstraction we’ve reached where we are self-aware is just… an accident of evolution. Maybe it’s possible for humanity to have done just as much but not possess this extra ability.