I think one of the reasons why people come to different conclusions on this issue is that some are only concerned with the pure question of free will, while others focus on the implications of that question.

Do we have free will? No. We like to think that we are making decisions based on preferences, but in reality what we prefer has been shaped by our genetics and environment/life experiences (both of which incorporate random chance as well). It was said well by Schopenhauer - "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

Here's the problem - this lack of free will implies none of us have true moral responsibility for our actions, as mentioned in the interview, and operating according to this assumption is detrimental to both individuals and society. Individuals can and will use this belief to justify their baser instincts, there are serious moral dilemmas with punishing criminals, etc. And most people are aware, at least subconsciously, of these inherent issues, which causes them to reject the idea of free will, on top of the fact that not having control over one's life is troubling for most people.

So in short, we do not have free will but should endeavor to live life as if we do.

Can't tell if this is a hilarious joke about free will or a random benign comment

I tried to watch a book once, but it didn't do anything for me.

Glad to hear it :)

I'd say you're welcome, but can't really take any credit.

lol this day has been a bit rough but this exchange cracked me up!

Watch? That’d would’ve been nice to listen or watch but it was a written interview lol. One click and dipped I see

Well, it's a written interview that you have to read, so watching it would be understandably difficult to do.

lol

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

How to reconcile the idea of free will, lack thereof, and responsibility for one’s reaction to stimuli?

We do things? Why? Why do we want to do things?

If someone acts on us, we have a choice on how to respond. If they’re trying to agitate us, we can choose not to engage, to get upset, etc.

Then we have the nature vs nurture argument.

Also, the altered state of consciousness one deals with when under the influence of mind altering substances, or dissociative influences of traumatic brain experiences.

Where does free will start and stop?

You can believe that you have JTB knowledge, but at that point what we're talking about is no different than any justified belief we possess. After all, we don't hold beliefs that we consider false. I think you could even reasonably describe a "Reasonable Belief" as one in which we ought to believe is justified and true, or to say it differently, that we believe is JTB knowledge.

The difference comes in terms of how we view a belief that is false. Under a JTB conception of knowledge, we usually say that someone can't actually know something that is false. While you can believe that you know that the Earth is flat, you can't actually know it because it's round. Under a Reasonable Belief paradigm, you can have a reasonable but incorrect belief. If someone believes something that's incorrect because they've got deficient evidence, that doesn't make their belief unreasonable.

What makes something unreasonable is if the justification we use to construct that belief isn't logically sound. For instance, cherrypicking evidence to support a belief is logically fallacious, so any belief that's supported based on cherrypicked evidence is unreasonable. This is the case even if the belief is true: coming to the correct conclusion doesn't mean we used logically sound methods to arrive at that conclusion. The difference between being taught something that's based on cherrypicked evidence and doing the cherrypicking yourself is that in the former case, you don't have the evidence necessary to tell that there's cherrypicking happening. That said, if we're aware that evidence and teaching can be flawed then we logically ought to check our sources. We should understand how our sources constructed their beliefs, as much as possible, and grant credence or disbelief to those sources appropriately.

Different people ought to come to different conclusions about a belief if they start with different evidence or different premises. Conspiratorial thinking is what renders a belief unreasonable, not the conclusions it generates.

I wanted to watch this, but I just couldn't.

[deleted]

those glasses, wtf.. gotta watch your nose around that guy

[deleted]

[deleted]

I gotta say, I might be coming around, nobody with free will would choose to purchase and wear those glasses.

Other than that, this interview seemed odd. A good part of it is spent asking him generic so where did you grow up, what was your favorite food as a kid questions. I understand that his life experiences can be relevant to shaping his views, but it's all so mundane, including his answers. There's a few paragraphs in the middle actually discussing his viewpoints, and that's it. Then back to bullshit questions. Maybe that's what they were going for, and I'm the problem, expecting it to be focused on his viewpoints.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Spinoza was a badass

I found his Ethics mindblowing. Never again I’ve come across anything like it.

Are rationalism and his questions so out of fashion that he is considered not relevant anymore in the current philosophical debates (whatever these may be)? Or have the critiques to his thought exposed too many mistakes? Or what? I just don’t see enough Spinoza around.

What do you guys think?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

So that’s my bad actually for framing my stance inaccurately, but what I’m really trying to say is not that I prefer negativity over positivity, it’s that I prefer honesty over positivity. But because being honest is often viewed as negative, the two concepts are often conflated. And the reason why is simple, there is usually much more reason to hide negativity than there is to hide positivity.

So back to your example, I would much rather my mother just authentically treat me the way she feels like it. Especially if I can tell if she’s showing false positivity. I don’t need things sugar coated, I’m very comfortable with the truth and reality.