That's not wrong. :)

It depends on really on how we peg the basis of the first humans. Did they got made by God or by evolution. But I suppose we can only speculate.

As for God per SE, it's also another issue because how do we define God?

Like I would define a God as someone if we are 2nd dimensional beings, a 3+ being. Because it would be like an author writing a book and we have no say or control on what gets written. A definition not like that isnt Godlike.

This leads also to another conclusions: the first human on earth had free will, since he was not conditioned by anyone else and had to always think how to build a house in the woods or other activites like hunt or harvesting crops. But at some point he also started to act like this impuslively

Then this leads to this conclusion: if God has free will, then he acts in an uncomprehensible way

If you say "ok it's time for confession, i am the Person that manipualted SovArya all this time", you achieve free will for a few minutes.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case.

Yes. That's a scary thought.

If we follow this logic, then Stephen Hawking achieved free will, since he was not anymore in charge of his impulsive voice and body

But i still feel like i am doing my actions randomly and that i am thinking randomly, like if i someone else Is using my mind and he or she Is manipualting my brain cells or voice in order to do that. But following this logic, I AM that Person that Is controling my mind and all this time i acted randomly and impulsively, and i should accept the fact that i will never achieve total control over my brain chemicals.

Indeed. And to think doing them takes a lot of effort too. I feel like calling them effort will or will of effort, definitely we pay something for this will.

Yeah, stopping a repetivie action, thinking deeply or talking slowly are the only existing free actions.

It remains for us to examine the spiritual element of speech ... this marvelous invention of composing from twenty-five or thirty sounds an infinite variety of words, which, although not having any resemblance in themselves to that which passes through our minds, nevertheless do not fail to reveal to others all of the secrets of the mind, and to make intelligible to others who cannot penetrate into the mind all that we conceive and all of the diverse movements of our souls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity

You can also read a more reader-friendly version via this link

should we satisfy our desire? Yes, it's justified

Note that "desire" here is in a narrow and neutral sense, like more delicious food, more money, not the scope that more killing or salves.

Nowadays, people often complains that "Life sucks, I'd rather like to be a primitive". Just like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi mentioned in his book Flow,

When Cyrus the Great had ten thousand cooks prepare new dishes for his table, the rest of Persia had barely enough to eat. These days every household in the “first world” has access to the recipes of the most diverse lands and can duplicate the feasts of past emperors. But does this make us more satisfied?

It seems that satisfying ours desire hasn't made us happy, so what't your argument onto this one? Should we satisfy our desire? My argument as follows to this is positive.

To answer this question better, let us presume that the only goal of our life is to get more happiness. But what is happiness? It's hard for me to define to meke all of us accepts it and that's also unnecessary. Like many democracy, There are many concepts that we couldn't make a perfect defination, but it won't hind us from discussing such topics. Just like [elephant test], It's hard to explain but you know it when you feel it. Since the goal of our life is to be happy, thus, if satisfying desire can bring us happiness, then, we should satisfy our desire, vice versa. Hence, the question here is that whether satisfying desire can bring us happiness?

Obviously, that is not a simple question, but we have a good way to seek the answer. Probably lots of people would accept the view that modern life is the result that human losing themselves in satisfying their desire like more food, more safety, faster transportation and so on, so we have the Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution and the current life. This argument is just like Yuval Noah Harari has stated in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, and he even argues that the Agricultural Revolution is the biggest fraud in history. Therefore, if we want to know whether we should satisfy desire or not, we just need to look at the two kind of life, the modern one and the primitive one. The one appeals us most wins and will be our answer. Of course, it's impossible for us to reach a perfect agreement, there always will be majority and minority, and the choice of majority is not always the truth, too. But out of the conviction and respect to the democracy and human reason, I argue that if the majority prefer the modern life, then it will be feasible for us to satisfy our desires.

So, here comes the key question, which life style do we prefer? The modern one or the primitive one? I think that most of us prefer the former. We don't want to sleep on a tree or in a cave, neither the fight with wild animal nor the fear of being eaten. That's right, I haven't surveyed everyone on earth, but if I was wrong, as the primitive life is more attractive, then why only a few people choose to live in the jungle or the wild island, people in New York obviously can afford the flying tickets. In fact, when people do choose to live like a primitive, they just do it for fun, they won't persist years after years. Some may argue that, we are adopted to the modern life, so it inappropriate for us to decide which one is better, it is just like asking a addict if he wants more weed and LSD. All right, let the primitive choose. In fact, the dice is already rolled, they choose to "give in" the desire, so you see this post on Reddit today. They may still argue that the primitive are shortsighted, if they can see the negative outcome caused by satisfying the desire in long run, they may probably choose another road. I have to admit that this is a strong rebuttal, but I have two replies want to make. First, we don't have the ability to foresee things in thousands years or even dozens years. Secondly, if they have a time-machine and they just see the modern life, then why is it impossible that they would hate the initial choice? They may be totally attracted, too!

So far, we have proved that the modern life is more preferable than the primitive life, thus we have proved indirectly that satisfying our desire is justified.

BTW, I also analysed why some people always complain about the modern life in this blog post, if you are interested, please go ahead. The post is written in Chinese and you can read it with a translator like Google.

BBTW, I am a Chinese senior student who is about to get a bachelor's degree of business management in 2023 and I want to study philosophy(especially the political one) abroad like a international student for one year in 2023 or 2024. So I'd appreciate that if anyone can help me with that goal, you can contact me here or Via the e-mail.

This is ideological, not philosophical.

Oddly enough I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but I think vegan burgers are just as good. Literally what I get everytime I go to Burger King 😂. Went on a pescatarian diet for a bit in high school just to try it out but eventually quit it. The way I see it, I genuinely enjoy eating meat. It tastes good, it smells good, it's easy to source and afford (compared to alternatives). If I as an individual could do something to ease the suffering of the animals I would, but it just seems impossible in the world we live in that's driven by profit and self-interest.

Yes, I understand, and I'm not trying to shame anyone for eating meat (I eat meat, just not very often). All I'm pointing out is that there isn't yet a very strong ethical argument in favor of meat consumption. None of these animals are engaged in ethics, and I tend to agree with David Hume in that ethics has some prerequisites which they all lack, making this a uniquely human issue.

At the end of the day we're all animals and our behavior can't be fully dictated by logic, ethics, or evidence. Regardless, I think it's important to understand when we're acting in a way that doesn't have any real justification even if we go ahead and act that way sometimes.

Excellently stated.

My most immediate issue is with

> ... Jean-Paul Sartre sees freedom as something humans are born into, and is the effect of one’s ability to choose. With this description of freedom, we are entirely responsible for our situation and the meaning that we give it. >

Satre proposes, according to this writing, that we are born into a vacuum lacking any external influences. Part of where Camus is so prescient on this issue IMO is that he accounts for externalities very directly, speaking on the very real situations that humans have created for ourselves with regard to drudgery and pointlessness, whereas (at least from this article) Sartre pretends that they don't exist. On the other hand, Camus directly speaks to the absurdity of the modern life.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

In a word: poppycock.

This article is naive as hell. This the only way to actually solve the issue.

You can't make society be more moral. You can only incentivize moral behavior and disincentivise immoral behavior.

You can't change humanity. You can only change everything around us.

In short, the issue of "humanities moral failure" cannot be adressed. Only it's symptoms can.

Each brand of crazy has their own pejoratives they like to employ to identify themselves. "Conspiracy theory" and "election denier" are left wing terms. Given that we are currently living through a time where the left has total control of their side of the corporate media to the point where it's unsettling how in lock step they are and there are so few right wing news sources, the terms are nearly meaningless. The difference between news and conspiracy theory seems to be about 6 months.

A key element to the leftist news center is to push for this "one Earth" globalism. Certainly, at some point in the future, we need to have a winner in this culture war, but I doubt that will ever completely unite humanity. It is in our nature to be diverse, and in diversity there is conflict and competition. This is why I said "THIS" version of humanity.

We currently have only our subjective experiences and a great deal of skepticism as to the capacity of others to accurately report their subjective experiences of reality. Political ideology often replaces individual morals, creating a situation where key indicators of the success or failure of society are tailor made to the strengths of that political ideology, instead of more universally accepted standards. This is why that one post of yours caused such great concern, because this disconnect with reality grows over time, more often than not, leading to a point where individuals feel that they must do something to "take back the power" from what the perceive are bad faith actors operating as a force of evil in the world.

Humanity takes a long time to evolve, and it is our very nature that rallies against success, causing each great empire to rot from within in this ever divisive madness we create for ourselves. The only way forward that I can see is to take the clear, concise arguments put forth by those who represent each side and have open, honest conversations about our motivations and goals.

Unfortunately, I see no clear, concise representatives from the far right or far left. I only see clowns and shills and actors exploiting the conflict for personal gain.

I would argue that absurdism actually presents that existentialist meaning-making is incoherent and inadequate, and so meaning making cannot be what drives us, because under greater examination it is not sustainable because it is not possible in an absurd world. This "infinitude of one's own freedom" is seen as a lie. So why devote your life to it. To live, to live well by yourself and by others, to recommit yourself to the present instead of meaning-making, allowing the world to be it's incoherent self, can be argued as more motivational than meaning-making because meaning-making is a story that can be, and absurdist would argue, is wrong. Instead of fighting it, accept that you don't understand, accept that you'll make mistakes, yet keep going anyways, cause you have already examined the question of suicide and you are consciously deciding to go on.

If the entire universe were rearranged down to every particle to be exactly the way it was in let's say Jan 1, 1950 would it still be the present day that just looked like Jan 1, 1950 or would it literally be Jan 1, 1950?

We could do it for our own sake- to have less depressing jobs, and generally avoid technologies of entrapment, butchery etc

What the hell, when the did I insult you? I simply criticized your [pattern of] objection. If you think humans aren't privileged in relation to all other life on earth in this context then it's OK to destroy humans for your benefit the same way it's OK to destroy other things for your benefit - since it's all the same, right? I really don't think you believe that. I think you actually agree with me but don't want to play along. I don't think you actually disagree with me but are rather in a bad way and don't want to play along with the discussion. While I'm trying to explore this idea you're trying to explore ways you can pick at my responses to you. I think my assessment was correct. You may disagree.

What I've gotten so far is:

X - asks a few questions

Y - You demand: "Give me more"

X - gives you more

Y - "it wasn't good enough!"

X - "OK.."

Y - *Well i don't like your answer"

X - "But isn't it basically the answer?"

Y - "Wrong!"

X - "You're wrong!"

Y - "DON'T YOU LOB PETTY INSULTS AT ME!" D:<