I have had many similar experiences as Kaiser Basileus with the philosophy department at my college. I resonate not only with his perspective on the incredibly inflated bureaucracies of the philosophy and other Humanities departments but also with the overly recursive nature of 'academic philosophy', whose recursion is accepted, axiomatically, as both a basic proposition and the inevitable conclusion. In my mind, this intentionally negates any means for developing a novel 'praxiology' in philosophy i.e, systems of actions and determinable reactions predicated to have novel (currently unacceptable) ends. The mind is, indeed, the killing field of the bold.
Since we don’t have the means to prove or disprove free will, not being able to rewind time to check. Might as well believe our choices matter and believe in determinism when it suits you.
Was I always going to hit that bowling strike? Who cares. I did that.
Did I lose money on the stock market? It was always meant to be. Wasn’t my fault.
We must necessarily act as though we are free because the amount of things we don't and can't know outweigh those we do by many exponents. That's independent of the metaphysical truth that we don't.
I experiment with a lot of ideas. You could make the claim I was determined to be the experimental type from birth.
But what leads to that experiment and the consequences of it's actions? I find it highly improbable that every crazy idea I seek to test is predetermined.
It kinda matches your theory: Determined to yearn for more and willing that determination to action. A kind of synthesis of the two. Not truly determining who I am, but guiding what I am on a path. The shape is not a blank tapestry, but a circle I can morph into an oblong.
Kinda like cropping out a photo.
That being said, I don't agree with your Stock Market example at all. I find that a response of a neurotic person meeting religion to avoid weakness.
Someone low in neuroticism wouldn't need to convince himself of fault in the external. The loss wouldn't lead to a breakdown but a drive to analyze it logically and do better the next time.
Someone neurotic would though, most people aren't as strong as us. Also people have tendency to attribute things out of their control to themselves sometimes causing anxiety.
People are neurotic because there's a benefit in being extra prepared for situations but that sometimes becomes pathological and catastrophise.
One could also put it to a societal level. Would society or the laws result in better outcomes if it is based on a belief in free will?
I hesitate to call it strength wholesale. Just like neuroticism being both a strength and a weakness, the lack of it can lead to being cold, callous, abrupt, and downright dangerous to those around you. It also can lead to unnecessary situations of personal danger resulting in death... not ideal.
The question is interesting but I'm more interested in society bringing self-actualization of the most amount of people rather than organizing around free-will. I'm not a libertarian.
I wouldn't be able to give an honest answer to the question given the framing and prior comments, determinism vs free will. That's not the question in my mind. So the simple answer would be no, but I think we're entering a different path if I gave my true answer.
I have had many similar experiences as Kaiser Basileus with the philosophy department at my college. I resonate not only with his perspective on the incredibly inflated bureaucracies of the philosophy and other Humanities departments but also with the overly recursive nature of 'academic philosophy', whose recursion is accepted, axiomatically, as both a basic proposition and the inevitable conclusion. In my mind, this intentionally negates any means for developing a novel 'praxiology' in philosophy i.e, systems of actions and determinable reactions predicated to have novel (currently unacceptable) ends. The mind is, indeed, the killing field of the bold.
Since we don’t have the means to prove or disprove free will, not being able to rewind time to check. Might as well believe our choices matter and believe in determinism when it suits you.
Was I always going to hit that bowling strike? Who cares. I did that.
Did I lose money on the stock market? It was always meant to be. Wasn’t my fault.
It’s easy low neuroticism.
We must necessarily act as though we are free because the amount of things we don't and can't know outweigh those we do by many exponents. That's independent of the metaphysical truth that we don't.
This is a halfway point I can respect.
I see no value in believing in determinism.
I experiment with a lot of ideas. You could make the claim I was determined to be the experimental type from birth.
But what leads to that experiment and the consequences of it's actions? I find it highly improbable that every crazy idea I seek to test is predetermined.
It kinda matches your theory: Determined to yearn for more and willing that determination to action. A kind of synthesis of the two. Not truly determining who I am, but guiding what I am on a path. The shape is not a blank tapestry, but a circle I can morph into an oblong.
Kinda like cropping out a photo.
That being said, I don't agree with your Stock Market example at all. I find that a response of a neurotic person meeting religion to avoid weakness.
Someone low in neuroticism wouldn't need to convince himself of fault in the external. The loss wouldn't lead to a breakdown but a drive to analyze it logically and do better the next time.
Someone neurotic would though, most people aren't as strong as us. Also people have tendency to attribute things out of their control to themselves sometimes causing anxiety.
People are neurotic because there's a benefit in being extra prepared for situations but that sometimes becomes pathological and catastrophise.
One could also put it to a societal level. Would society or the laws result in better outcomes if it is based on a belief in free will?
I hesitate to call it strength wholesale. Just like neuroticism being both a strength and a weakness, the lack of it can lead to being cold, callous, abrupt, and downright dangerous to those around you. It also can lead to unnecessary situations of personal danger resulting in death... not ideal.
The question is interesting but I'm more interested in society bringing self-actualization of the most amount of people rather than organizing around free-will. I'm not a libertarian.
I wouldn't be able to give an honest answer to the question given the framing and prior comments, determinism vs free will. That's not the question in my mind. So the simple answer would be no, but I think we're entering a different path if I gave my true answer.
I like the challenge though. Makes me think.
Halfway through, i came off a lot better than expected. Is there a way you can do normalisation and get rid of the high end hiss?
I will have to play around with the tech but will see what I can do!