Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:03 pmYes, I thought it was very strange that Iambiguous thought free will and dasein could work together.

No doubt his thought process was rooted existentially in dasein.

At first I thought he must have meant that the belief in free will is grounded in dasein - which is reasonable. But rereading the context ruled this out.

God, I don't understand why he doesn't use 'experience' instead of dasein. It just mystifies things.

From what I've seen dasein doesn't mean anything, so I wouldn't rule out that it can work with free will.

The above view is rooted in my gongulum but I won't tell you guys what a gongulum really is so don't ask.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:41 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:13 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:03 pmYes, I thought it was very strange that Iambiguous thought free will and dasein could work together.

No doubt his thought process was rooted existentially in dasein.

At first I thought he must have meant that the belief in free will is grounded in dasein - which is reasonable. But rereading the context ruled this out.

God, I don't understand why he doesn't use 'experience' instead of dasein. It just mystifies things.

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:43 pm "Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

He adopted a 'serious philosopher' term. (serious philosopher being pejorative in his usage).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:21 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:43 pm "Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

He adopted a 'serious philosopher' term. (serious philosopher being pejorative in his usage).

Yes, it seems pretentious to me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:52 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:11 pm I can't think of any determinists who think that human brains somehow acquired libertarian autonomy.

Has anybody heard about this?

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree

Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

Again...

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:52 am

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree

Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

Again...

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

What in the world are you talking about?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:13 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:50 am
Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

Again...

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

What in the world are you talking about?

Whatever he's talking about, he doesn't seem to be talking to you or anyone else. He seems to have this decades long monologue or conversation with himself going on in his head, and for some bizarre reason he's using internet forums to write out some of it but he's still only talking to himself. God knows why he does that, but it's kinda interesting from a psychological point of view.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:58 pm
Whatever he's talking about, he doesn't seem to be talking to you or anyone else. He seems to have this decades long monologue or conversation with himself going on in his head, and for some bizarre reason he's using internet forums to write out some of it but he's still only talking to himself. God knows why he does that, but it's kinda interesting from a psychological point of view.

You are definitely not the first with an analysis like this. I think you're touching on some truths.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:58 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:13 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm

Again...



It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

What in the world are you talking about?

Whatever he's talking about, he doesn't seem to be talking to you or anyone else. He seems to have this decades long monologue or conversation with himself going on in his head, and for some bizarre reason he's using internet forums to write out some of it but he's still only talking to himself. God knows why he does that, but it's kinda interesting from a psychological point of view.

Nature to iambiguous:

Just what you need...another Stooge!!!

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:06 pm
Nature to iambiguous:

Just what you need...another Stooge!!!

If everywhere you go, you still smell shit, check the bottom of your shoe.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:58 pm
Whatever he's talking about, he doesn't seem to be talking to you or anyone else. He seems to have this decades long monologue or conversation with himself going on in his head, and for some bizarre reason he's using internet forums to write out some of it but he's still only talking to himself. God knows why he does that, but it's kinda interesting from a psychological point of view.

You are definitely not the first with an analysis like this. I think you're touching on some truths.

Hmm let's see, looks like a defence mechanism run amok. The external world did me harm so I'll forever invalidate the external world. Something like this

So let's see, he's an undiganosed autistic and also has a very weak/small/fragile sense of self that gets pushed around in every direction whenever he's presented with new views, new philosophies. So maybe after he was pushed around too much, he developed a grudge against the external world / other people, and shut the external world out.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

What does the script say he ought to be doing?

Does the script say that atheists can't get rid of God and religion by engaging in debates?

Does the script say that debates have no effect on religious people?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:52 am

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree

Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

Again...

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

Are you saying he should remind people that he is an atheist and he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise? Or that he should be acting differently because he believes in determinism?

It often seems like there is some unstated conclusion or argument in your posts.
In a determinist universe atheists could come together to rid the scourge that is God as they would view it. Perhaps they will.

IOW if I read the above it seems like you are saying Christians will always be because of determinism. I don't know how you know that if that's what you're saying.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 7:10 pm

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

What does the script say he ought to be doing?

Does the script say that atheists can't get rid of God and religion by engaging in debates?

Does the script say that debates have no effect on religious people?

What script? The one from your God? The True Christianity script? Henry quirk's Libertarian/Deist script? My rooted existentially in dasein script? Sam's script? Or are all of them interchangeable in a world where that's what they all are...scripts derived inherently from brains that compel us to think and feel and say and do only that which those immutable laws of matter actually do script for us?

So, is there anything that Harris himself excludes here? He's arguing for atheism because he was destined to argue for it? Or, instead, because "somehow" a part of his brain did acquire these mysterious "internal components" that really do make his own arguments more reasonable than the religionists?